Case No. (The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.) IN THE 26th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
|
|
- Ashley Brown
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case No. (The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.) IN THE 26th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE NAME: Michael W. Morton DATE OF BIRTH: August 12, 1954 PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: Mark W. Michael Unit 266, Tennessee Colony, TX TDCJ-CID NUMBER: SID NUMBER: (1) This application concerns (check all that apply): X a conviction parole a sentence mandatory supervision time credit out-of-time appeal or petition for discretionary review (2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from? (Include the court number and county.) 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas (3) What was the case number in the trial court? No K (4) What was the name of the trial judge? Honorable William S. Lott 1
2 (5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name: Yes, William P. Allison and Bill White. (6) What was the date that the judgment was entered? February 17, 1987 (7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence? Murder; sentenced to life and a fine of $5,000 (8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the same court at the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each count? N/A (9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.) guilty-open plea X not guilty guilty-plea bargain nolo contendere/no contest If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain: (10) What kind of trial did you have? no jury X jury for guilt and punishment jury for guilt, judge for punishment (11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did you testify? Yes (12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? X yes no If you did appeal, answer the following questions: (A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? Third Court of Appeals. 2
3 (B) What was the case number? CR (C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's name: Yes, William P. Allison (D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Denied, August 16 th, 1982 (13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals? X yes no If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions: (A) What was the case number? PD (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Petition denied, September 27, 1989 (14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction? X yes no If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A-I) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals writ number? WR-21, (B-I) What was the decision and the date of the decision? June 5, The application was granted. In the application, Applicant only sought DNA testing on a bedsheet stained with semen (using the more limited DNA technology available at that time, and prior to the enactment of Chapter 64) and did not ask the Court to vacate his conviction. (A-II) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals writ number? WR-21, (B-II) What was the decision and the date of the decision? June 24, 1992 (A-III) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals writ number? WR-21, (B-III) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Sept. 16, 1992 (C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could not have been presented on your previous application. 3
4 The current claims for relief are based upon newly-discovered evidence that was unavailable to Applicant at the time the prior writ applications were filed. First, the claims are based in whole or in part upon the results of DNA testing conducted in 2011 pursuant to a 2010 court order, using advanced STR-DNA technology that was unavailable to any party at the time of trial or the prior writ applications. Second, the claims are based in whole or in part on additional information about the convicted felon who has only recently been identified through the CODIS DNA database as the source of DNA from the scene of the crime at issue, and such evidence could only have been (and was) developed as a result of the DNA test results issued in And third, the claims are based in whole or in part on documentary evidence received through a public records act request submitted to the Williamson County Sheriff s Office in 2008; the materials provided were suppressed by the State prior to that time and were only obtained after a 2008 ruling by the Attorney General overrode the County s efforts to withhold those documents. (15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal court? yes X no If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number: (16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies) N/A yes no 4
5 If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A) (B) What date did you present the claim? Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision? If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim: (17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a brief summary of the facts. If your grounds and brief summary of the facts have not been presented on the form application, the Court will not consider your grounds. If you have more than four grounds, use page 10 of the form, which you may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with each ground numbered in sequence. You may attach a memorandum of law to the form application if you want to present legal authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief in a memorandum of law that were not stated on the form application. If you are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum. 5
6 On August 13, 1986, Christine Morton was found bludgeoned to death in the home in Williamson County that she shared with her husband, Applicant Michael Morton ( Mr. Morton or Applicant ), and the couple s three-year-old son, Eric. Mr. Morton was convicted of the murder after a jury trial in February At trial, the State alleged that Mr. Morton had murdered his wife in a rage in the late evening of August 12, 1986, or the early morning hours of August 13, 1986, after she declined to have sexual intercourse with him. Mr. Morton asserted a trial defense of actual innocence, maintaining his wife she was alive and asleep in their bed when he left for work at approximately 5:30a.m., and that she must have been killed by an unknown intruder sometime thereafter. In February 1987, Applicant was convicted after a jury trial. In 2005, he filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was ultimately granted in substantial part. As set forth below, the results of DNA testing conducted in have yielded new, highly favorable DNA evidence indicating that another man a convicted felon who is also under investigation for a similar murder in the area actually murdered Christine Morton. In addition, between , and also while represented by undersigned pro bono counsel, Applicant obtained a wealth of documentary evidence that had been wrongfully withheld from him at trial in violation of due process, as set forth below. CLAIM ONE Newly Discovered DNA Evidence Provides Scientific Support for Morton s Claim of Actual Innocence. No Reasonable Juror Would Have Found Proof of Morton s Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Had the DNA Evidence Been Available at Trial. New DNA evidence provides powerful, scientific support for Applicant s longstanding 6
7 claim of innocence, and establishes that no rational juror would have found proof of Morton s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt had it been available at trial. Applicant was convicted in 1987 of the 1986 murder of his wife, Christine, who was found bludgeoned to death in their home. At trial, Morton contended that when he left for work on the morning of August 13, 1986, his wife was alive and asleep in the couple s bed, and that she must have been killed by an unknown intruder shortly thereafter. New DNA evidence, conducted with advanced STR-DNA technology, strongly supports that trial defense by revealing the following: 1) a bandana recovered 100 yards from the Mortons home the day after the murder contains Christine Morton s blood and hair, co-mingled with the DNA of a known convicted felon ( John Doe ) and 2) John Doe s DNA profile is also consistent with the DNA recovered from a pubic hair at the scene of another, unsolved murder of a female homicide victim in Travis County. The Travis County crime had a similar modus operandi to the Morton crime and occurred when Applicant was already incarcerated for this offense. This objective, scientific evidence strongly supports Morton s claim that someone else broke into his home in the early morning hours on August 13, 1986 and murdered his wife. These DNA results provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found Morton guilty beyond a reasonable doubt had they been available at trial. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). CLAIM TWO Newly Discovered Evidence, Other Than DNA, Strongly Supports Morton s Claim of Actual Innocence. No Rational Jury Would Have Found Proof of Morton s Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Had the Evidence Been Available. The State failed to turn over material, exculpatory evidence that, had it been available at 7
8 trial, supports a finding that no rational jury would have found proof of Applicant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This suppressed evidence was only obtained after Applicant prevailed in a contested Public Records Act request in 2008, and includes: 1) a taped police interview by the Williamson County Sherriff s Office (WCSO s) chief investigator, Sgt. Don Wood, dated 8/24/86, with the victim s mother in which she reported that her grandson (Applicant s and the victim s son), Eric, had personally witnessed the murder, gave a detailed, factually corroborated account of witnessing a man who was not his Daddy beat Christine to death; 2) a condensed version of the transcript of the interview referenced in above, in which Sgt. Wood alerts the Sheriff and the District Attorney s Office to the most significant information obtained in the interview about this eyewitness account; (3) a handwritten telephone message to Sgt. Don Wood, dated 8/15/86 (two days after the murder), reporting that what appeared to be Christine Morton s missing Visa credit card was recovered at the Jewel Box store in San Antonio, with a note further indicating that a police officer in San Antonio would be able to identify the woman, an unnamed but apparently known prior offender, who used the card; 4) a report by WCSO officer Traylor, dated 8/14/86, that a neighbor had on several occasions observed a male park a green van on the street behind [the Mortons ] address, then the subject would get out and walk into the wooded area off the road and another neighbor may know where the subject lives; 5) internal WCSO notes written to Sgt. Don Wood, undated, and correspondence, dated 9/27/86, reporting that a check made out to Christine Morton by John B. Cross prior to her death was cashed on 8/22/86, nine days after her death, and that the signature on the back appeared to be a forgery of Christine s. This new evidence is non-cumulative, was unavailable to Applicant at the time of his trial or at any time prior to 2008, and strongly supports his claim that a third party intruder committed the crime. It also would have strongly supported his trial defense that investigators 8
9 for the State, in a rush to judgment against Applicant, failed to pursue reasonable investigative leads that would have identified a third party intruder as the actual murderer. CLAIM THREE The State Violated Morton s Due Process Rights by Failing to Disclose Material, Exculpatory Evidence That Would Have Supported Morton s Innocence Claim at Trial and Impeached the Integrity of the State s Investigation in the Eyes of the Jury. The State violated Morton s due process rights by failing to turn over material, exculpatory evidence that would have supported Morton s innocence claim at trial: 1) A taped police interview by the Williamson County Sherriff s Office (WCSO s) chief investigator, Sgt. Don Wood, dated 8/24/86, with the victim s mother in which she reported that her grandson (Applicant s and the victim s son), Eric, had personally witnessed the murder, gave a detailed, factually corroborated account of witnessing a man who was not his Daddy beat Christine to death, and in which Sgt. Wood attempts to coerce the victim s mother into discounting Eric s eyewitness account; 2) A condensed version of the transcript of the interview referenced in above, in which Sgt. Wood alerts the Sheriff and the District Attorney s Office to the most significant information obtained in the interview about this eyewitness account; (3) A handwritten telephone message to Sgt. Don Wood, dated 8/15/86 (two days after the murder), reporting that what appeared to be Christine Morton s missing Visa credit card was recovered at the Jewel Box store in San Antonio, with a note further indicating that a police officer in San Antonio would be able to identify the woman, an unnamed but apparently known prior offender, who used the card; 4) A report by WCSO officer Traylor, dated 8/14/86, that a neighbor had on several occasions observed a male park a green van on the street behind [the Mortons ] address, then the subject would get out and walk into the wooded area off the road and another neighbor 9
10 may know where the subject lives; 5) Internal WCSO notes written to Sgt. Don Wood, undated, and correspondence, dated 9/27/86, reporting that a check made out to Christine Morton by John B. Cross prior to her death was cashed on 8/22/86, nine days after her death, and that the signature on the back appeared to be a forgery of Christine s, and in which the WCSO official disparages the possibility that a third-party killer may be linked to the forged check. This new evidence is non-cumulative, was unavailable to Applicant at the time of his trial or at any time prior to 2008, and strongly supports his claim that a third party intruder committed the crime. As such, it was suppressed by the State at trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The suppressed evidence set forth above would also have been highly material to Applicant s claim at trial that investigators and prosecutors for the State, in a rush to judgment against Applicant, failed to pursue reasonable investigative leads that would have identified a third party intruder as the actual murderer. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). CLAIM FOUR The State Violated Morton s Due Process Rights by Deliberately Failing to Comply With Specific Court Orders to Produce Investigative Documents to Trial and Appellate Courts for In Camera Brady Review When Those Documents Contained Material, Exculpatory Evidence That Would Have Supported Morton s Theory of Defense and Impeached the Integrity of the State s Investigation. The State violated Morton s due process rights by failing to comply with court orders to produce all investigative documents and reports prepared by Sgt. Don Wood for in camera review, so that the trial and appellate courts could determine if they included any Brady material that would have supported Morton s theory of defense or undermined the integrity of the police investigation. Although Wood was the lead investigator the prosecution did not call him and 10
11 thereby avoided a statutory obligation to disclose his reports and notes. This request was first made by defense counsel at a pretrial conference, and the Court ordered that the State to hand over the complete reports of Sgt. Wood s, including all of his field notes, in order to make an in camera determination whether any of the evidence was Brady material, which the trial court then placed under seal for review by the Court of Appeals. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals reviewed the sealed envelope containing what was produced by the prosecutors as purportedly the complete Wood reports and field notes, and concluded there was no exculpatory or impeaching material contained therein. On August 26, 2011, the sealed in camera documents provided to the trial court and forwarded to the Court of Appeals in 1987 were unsealed pursuant to a motion by undersigned counsel. Only one report from Sgt. Wood, dated August 13, 1986 (the date of the murder), was inside, and none of the other materials prepared and received by Sgt. Wood during his investigation that form the basis of Brady relief in Claim Three were included. Moreover, some of these suppressed exculpatory documents -- including the condensed version of the interview between Wood and applicant s mother in law reporting the critical details of Eric s eyewitness account of a third-party monster committing the murder, and the report of the suspicious individual in a green van repeatedly parking behind the Mortons home) were contained within the portion of the District Attorney s Office file marked Trial Documents produced by court order on September 26, Trial prosecutors deliberate failure to produce the Wood documents as expressly ordered for in camera review by the trial and appellate courts for Brady review was a knowing and egregious violation of Morton s due process rights, and renders his trial fundamentally unfair. CLAIM FIVE 11
12 The State Made False Assertions at Trial Regarding Alleged Scientific Evidence as to the Victim s Time of Death in Violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution and Federal Due Process. This False Evidence, Which Has Now Been Refuted by DNA Evidence, Denied Morton a Fair Trial. The State made false assertions in its closing arguments at trial by misrepresenting scientific testimony presented by former Travis County Medical Examiner Roberto Bayardo. Dr. Bayardo testified at trial that based on an examination of the victim s stomach contents at autopsy, she was most likely killed no later than 1:15 a.m. However, Dr. Bayardo repeatedly emphasized that his estimation was not a scientific statement and otherwise qualified his testimony significantly. In summation, however, the prosecution grossly misstated that testimony. The prosecutor argued, for example, that medical science shows this Defendant killed his wife and made numerous other false characterizations of Dr. Bayardo s conclusions and opinions. This argument far exceeded the State s latitude to make fair comment on the evidence by misrepresenting Bayardo s opinions as scientific statement, a misrepresentation that was calculated to, and did, mislead the jury as to a critical issue in dispute at trial. The trial prosecutors knew or should have known that their assertions did not reflect a scientific opinion by Dr. Bayardo, nor his actual testimony. Because there was no other forensic evidence linking Applicant to the crime and the case against him was otherwise entirely circumstantial, this misrepresentation had a highly prejudicial impact on the jury. Accordingly, these false assertions by the State violate Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution and Federal Due Process and deprived Applicant of a fair trial. Furthermore, to the extent that this claim may otherwise be procedurally barred because Applicant s counsel failed to raise it on direct appeal or otherwise, it is now cognizable under art (a)(2) because of the other evidence now in the record establishing that no rational juror would have convicted Applicant beyond a 12
13 reasonable doubt. CLAIM SIX The State Presented What Purported to Be Scientific Conclusions Concerning Semen and Hair Evidence To Prove Motive and Rebut Morton s Theory of Defense That New DNA Testing Now Shows Were False Thereby Depriving Morton of His Rights To A Fair Trial in Violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The State presented evidence from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) laboratory technician Donna Stanley that was scientifically incorrect. Stanley testified that her analysis of a stain on the victim and Mortons marital bed sheet consisted of semen only (what is known as a neat stain), supporting the State s theory that Applicant had killed his wife and then masturbated over her in a jealous rage. In 2000, however, in conjunction with court-ordered DNA testing on the bedsheet stain, it was revealed to be a mixture of seminal fluid from Applicant and abundant epithelial cells from Christine consistent with it being a product of prior consensual intercourse between Morton and his wife. Furthermore, Stanley s original DPS reports about the bed sheet examination do not provide any notice or basis for her testimony that the stain was neat (contained only semen), so the defense counsel could not have known, and did not know, about her key conclusions prior to trial. This now demonstrably incorrect scientific testimony, presented in way that deliberately deprived the defense of an opportunity to expose its falsity at time of trial through microscopic examination by an expert, allowed the State to improperly argue an incorrect motive for the crime based evidence that DNA testing now proves and present factually false evidence regarding the manner in which the crime was allegedly committed. Additionally, DPS falsely excluded Christine as source of hair on a critical piece of 13
14 evidence, a blood-stained bandana, that advanced DNA testing conducted in 2011 reveals was, in fact, her hair. This false exclusion undermined Morton s theory of defense. Collectively, this factually false scientific evidence improperly bolstered the prosecution s motive allegation and undermined defendant s theory of defense in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution and Federal Due Process and deprived Applicant of a fair trial. CLAIM SEVEN The Cumulative Effect of the State s Brady and Other Due Process Violations Denied Morton a Fair Trial and Resulted in a Conviction Not Worthy of Confidence. Each of the above claims, individually and collectively, establishes that had the suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence been presented at trial, and the factually false scientific evidence not been presented, Applicant would not have been convicted. The totality of the suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence is material when its cumulative effect is such that there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Kyles, 514 U.S. at (1995) (citing U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 685). A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. at The cumulative effect of the due process violations set forth in Claims Two through Six deprived Applicant of material, exculpatory evidence that would have supported his trial defense, and resulted in a verdict unworthy of confidence. 14
15 WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING. STATE OF TEXAS ) ) 26 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ) OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS ) AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared John Wesley Raley, who after being by me first duly sworn deposed on his oath and stated as follows: My name is John Wesley Raley. I am an attorney licensed in the State of Texas. I represent Michael Wayne Morton. I have the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on Mr. Morton s behalf. I am familiar with the factual matters set forth therein and they are, according to my information, knowledge and belief, true, correct, and accurate. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. John Wesley Raley Subscribed and sworn before me this day of October Notary Public, State of Texas My commission expires: 15
16 Respectfully submitted, John Wesley Raley State Bar No Louisiana, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas, (713) Fax (713) Nina Morrison Barry Scheck The Innocence Project 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 New York, NY (212) Fax (212) Gerry Goldstein Cynthia Hujar Orr Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 310 S. St. Mary's St., 29th Floor San Antonio, Texas Counsel for Applicant Michael W. Morton 16
APPENDIX F INSTRUCTIONS
APPENDIX F COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 INSTRUCTIONS 1. You must
More informationINSTRUCTIONS. 2. The clerk of the trial court in which you were convicted will make this form available to you, on request, without charge.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 INSTRUCTIONS 1. You must use the complete
More informationAGREED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
No. 86-452-K26D EX PARTE IN THE 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL MORTON Applicant WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AGREED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In accordance with Articles 11.07
More informationCOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 INSTRUCTIONS 1. You must use this
More informationCase No K26 Writ No. AP-76,663. DISTRICT COURT OF v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, MICHAEL W. MORTON TEXAS REPORT TO COURT
Case No. 86-452-K26 Writ No. AP-76,663 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 26 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, MICHAEL W. MORTON TEXAS REPORT TO COURT Barry Scheck Nina Morrison (Appearing pro
More informationCase No K26 Writ No. AP-76,663 IN THE 26" JUDICIAL
Case No. 86-452-K26 Writ No. AP-76,663 THE STATE OF TEXAS V. MICHAEL W. MORTON IN THE 26" JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO KEN ANDERSON'S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION
More informationUS Supreme Court. Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 14 State Appellate Courts
US Supreme Court Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 14 State Appellate Courts State County Court / District Court Federal District Court US Legal System Common
More informationMODEL FORM FOR USE IN MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.850
RULE 3.987. MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF MODEL FORM FOR USE IN MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.850 In the Circuit Court of the Judicial Circuit, in
More informationFLORIDA MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF FORM FORM FOR USE IN MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.
RULE 3.987. FLORIDA MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF FORM FORM FOR USE IN MOTIONS FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.850 In the Circuit Court of the Judicial Circuit,
More informationAPPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF GEORGIA, Petitioner, Civil Action No. Inmate Number vs., Habeas Corpus Warden, Respondent (Name of Institution where you are now located) APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
More informationINMATE FORM FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY
INMATE FORM FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY (NOTE: O.C.G.A. 9-10-14(a) requires the proper use of this form, and failure to use this form as required will result in the clerk of any
More informationGUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE
GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Before completing the questionnaire please note: You must not be currently represented by counsel and the crime and conviction must have occurred in Michigan.
More informationPETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1
9-701. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. [For use with District Court Criminal Rule 5-802 NMRA] STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT, (Full name of prisoner) Petitioner, v., (Name of warden,
More informationAPPENDIX A. FORM PETITION READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THE PETITION
APPENDIX A. FORM PETITION The following form petition shall be available without cost to a prisoner in the prisons and other places of detention and shall also be available without cost to any potential
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254 (PERSONS IN STATE CUSTODY) 1) The attached form is
More informationINFORMATION ON APPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY (PARDONS, COMMUTATIONS, ETC.)
INFORMATION ON APPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY (PARDONS, COMMUTATIONS, ETC.) Oregon law gives the Governor executive clemency power. This means that the Governor has the power to grant pardons, commutations,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No PABLO MELENDEZ, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-10352 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk PABLO MELENDEZ, JR., Petitioner
More informationINNOCENCE PROJECT SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
INNOCENCE PROJECT SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE NAME: Ricky Smith PRISONER NUMBER: #5679832 DATE OF BIRTH: July 15, 1967 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: CURRENT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND ADDRESS: New Columbia Correctional
More informationAmended by Order dated June 21, 2013; effective July 1, RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FIVE THE SUPREME COURT B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Amended by Order dated June 21, 2013; effective July 1, 2013. RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FIVE THE SUPREME COURT B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Rule 5:7B. Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence.
More informationIN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS EX P A R T E Texas Court of Criminal Appeals JOHN WI L L I A M K I N G, Cause No. WR-49,391-03
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 5, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 5, 2006 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD ODOM Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 91-07049 Chris Craft, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart
KENNETH RAY SHARP, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-006 / 05-1771 Filed June 25, 2008 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo
More informationReferred to Committee on Judiciary. SUMMARY Abolishes capital punishment. (BDR )
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL FEBRUARY, 0 JOINT SPONSOR: SENATOR SEGERBLOM Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Abolishes capital punishment. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government:
More informationDeterminate Sentence Proceedings for the Violent or Habitual Offender
for the Violent or Habitual Offender Speaker Information Mike graduated from the University of Saint Thomas in Houston in 1974 and the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1979. He was admitted to the Bar
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 24802 GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. Moscow, April 2000 Term 2000 Opinion No. 93 Filed: September 6,
More informationUNIFORM APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF No. NAME OF APPLICANT (to be filled in by the clerk) JUDICIAL DISTRICT PRISON NUMBER PARISH OF PLACE OF CONFINEMENT STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. CUSTODIAN (Warden,
More informationINSTRUCTIONS - READ CAREFULLY
IN THE COURT OF COUNTY STATE OF INDIANA Full Name of Movant Prison Number (if any) Case No. (To be supplied by the clerk of the court) v. State of Indiana, Respondent. INSTRUCTIONS - READ CAREFULLY In
More informationdeath penalty. In prosecuting the case, State v. Michael Anderson, Mr. Alford and Mr.
I. Description of Misconduct In August 2009, Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys Kevin Guillory and John Alford conducted a trial on behalf of the State of Louisiana. The defendant faced the death
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 26, 2018
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 26, 2018 10/15/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TYWAN MONTREASE SYKES Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No.
More informationJackson County Prosecutor s Office Conviction Review Unit
Jackson County Prosecutor s Office Conviction Review Unit APPLICATION FOR CONVICTION REVIEW The Conviction Review Unit of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney s Office investigates only claims of actual
More informationUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: TEXAS INNOCENCE NETWORK QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: TEXAS INNOCENCE NETWORK QUESTIONNAIRE PERSONAL INFORMATION A. Full name (first, middle, last): B. Inmate Number: C. Current unit and mailing address: D. Date of Birth: E. Are you
More informationRequest for Posthumous Pardon Investigation of Cameron Todd Willingham
Barry C. Scheck, Esq. Peter J. Neufeld, Esq. Directors Maddy delone, Esq. Executive Director Innocence Project 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Tel 212.364.5340 Fax 212.364.5341 www.innocenceproject.org
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC06-539 MILFORD WADE BYRD, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 2, 2009] This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying Milford Byrd
More informationCourt of Appeals of New York - People v. Fuentes
Touro Law Review Volume 26 Number 3 Annual New York State Constitutional Issue Article 19 July 2012 Court of Appeals of New York - People v. Fuentes Pamela Cullington Follow this and additional works at:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationOverview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx.
Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx Basic Concepts PresumptionofInnocence:BurdenonStateto erase presumption by proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Absolute
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0185P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0185p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationPARDON FOR INNOCENCE
PARDON FOR INNOCENCE NOTICE TO APPLICANT Please read the application instructions carefully, and complete the application accordingly. Submission of incomplete applications or applications that do not
More informationTEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES FULL PARDON APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
STEP 1: TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES FULL PARDON APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU BEGIN, you must have the following documents to complete the application. 1. Offense reports for all arrests,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,960 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CRAIG L. GOOCH, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,960 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CRAIG L. GOOCH, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TIMOTHY
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-08-00113-CR EX PARTE JOANNA GASPERSON On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationFile: CRIM JUST.doc Created on: 9/25/2007 3:45:00 PM Last Printed: 9/26/ :53:00 AM CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Criminal Justice: Battery Statute Munoz-Perez v. State, 942 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 2006) The use of a deadly weapon under Florida s aggravated battery statute requires that the
More informationMOTION FOR CHANGE OF PARENTING TIME (COMPANIONSHIP AND VISITATION) LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF PARENTING TIME (COMPANIONSHIP AND VISITATION) LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO You should only use these forms if there is already a custody and parenting order issued by the Domestic Relations
More informationPage 1 SWORN STATEMENT DAVID DOUGLAS ARNOLD ******************************************************** IN RE: CAUSE NO K26
Page 1 SWORN STATEMENT OF DAVID DOUGLAS ARNOLD ******************************************************** IN RE: CAUSE NO. 86-452-K26 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) ) VS. ) WILLIAMSON COUNTY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 93-714 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2010 JESSIE LEE BUCHANAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER
More informationCAUSE NO. IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICATION FOR SEALING FILES AND RECORDS
CAUSE NO. IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICATION FOR SEALING FILES AND RECORDS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes the applicant,, by and through
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR No CR
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00133-CR No. 10-15-00134-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. LOUIS HOUSTON JARVIS, JR. AND JENNIFER RENEE JONES, Appellant Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan
More informationthe defense written or recorded statements of the defendant or codefendant, the defendant s
DISCOVERY AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE I. Introduction In Utah, criminal defendants are generally entitled to broad pretrial discovery. Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that upon request
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information & Instructions: Petition to enforce foreign judgment 1. The following form, Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, is used to enforce a judgment obtained in a state other than Texas. 2. In order
More informationInformation About Your Case and the Crime
1 Information About Your Case and the Crime In order to make a decision about whether we will be able to assist you, it is important that we know as much as possible about your case and the crime that
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Lemons, Koontz, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Lemons, Koontz, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. DWAYNE LAMONT JOHNSON v. Record No. 060363 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 2, 2007 COMMONWEALTH
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6049 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JIMMIE RAY SLAUGHTER, v. Petitioner, MIKE MULLIN, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent. DEATH PENALTY CASE EMERGENCY
More informationThis article may be cited as the Access to Justice Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act.
Page 1 Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 Annotated Currentness Title 17. Criminal Procedures Chapter 28. Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Preservation of Evidence Article 1. Post-Conviction DNA Procedures
More informationPiece of the Puzzle, Part of the Whole Writs County and District Clerks Association of Texas Winter Education Conference
11.07 Writs 2019 County and District Clerks Association of Texas Winter Education Conference January 28-31, 2019 Embassy Suites by Hilton Hotel Conference Center & Spa, San Marcos Wednesday, January 30,
More information1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)?
Canadian Law 2204 Criminal Law and he Criminal Trial Process Unit 2 Test Multiple Choice Name: { / 85} 1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)? death trap investigative
More informationIf you are applying for a government-issued license, certificate, or permit, you must disclose your conviction and expungement.
What is an expungement? An expungement reopens your criminal case, dismisses and sets aside the conviction, and re-closes the case without a conviction. In effect, you are no longer a convicted person.
More informationUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER TEXAS CRIMINAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE. Professor: Bob Wicoff. Course Description and Syllabus-Fall 2014
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER TEXAS CRIMINAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE Professor: Bob Wicoff Course Description and Syllabus-Fall 2014 Course Description: This upper-level class will focus on state criminal
More informationCOMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE NOTICE TO APPLICANT Please read the application instructions carefully, and complete the application accordingly. Submission of incomplete applications or applications that do not
More informationThe court process CONSUMER GUIDE. How the criminal justice system works. FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON
The court process How the criminal justice system works. CONSUMER GUIDE FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Inside The process Arrest and complaint Preliminary hearing Grand jury Arraignment
More informationYES, I DO WANT THE WISCONSIN INNOCENCE PROJECT TO CONSIDER MY APPLICATION.
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE Wisconsin Innocence Project of Frank J. Remington Center University of Wisconsin Law School 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 Check only one of these two boxes. YES, I DO WANT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Richard Montgomery appeals the district court s denial of his motion for a new
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT January 3, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff-Appellee, No.
More informationPeople v Santiago 2010 NY Slip Op 33168(U) November 5, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 11351/1989 Judge: Thomas J.
People v Santiago 2010 NY Slip Op 33168(U) November 5, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 11351/1989 Judge: Thomas J. Carroll Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1
Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be
More informationFrancis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John
I. Overview of the Complaint Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John Alford were part of a team of Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted Michael Anderson
More informationHello! I am Artin DerOhanian
DISCOVERY IN MUNICIPAL COURT Artin DerOhanian Senior Associate Attorney 1380 Pantheon Way, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232 (210) 257-6357 Artin.DerOhanian@rshlawfirm.com 1 Hello! I am Artin DerOhanian
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARSHALL HOWARD MURDOCK v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2002-B-1153 No. M2010-01315-CCA-R3-PC - Filed
More informationOFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
George Gascón District Attorney CONVICTION REVIEW REQUEST FORM The San Francisco District Attorney (SFDA) will review a person s criminal conviction if there is a colorable claim of factual innocence based
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 H 2 HOUSE BILL 1190 Committee Substitute Favorable 4/23/09
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H HOUSE BILL 0 Committee Substitute Favorable //0 Short Title: Preservation of DNA & Biological Evidence. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: April, 0 1 1 0 1 A
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST 2000 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST 2000 Session CARL ROSS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-19898 Joe Brown, Judge No. W1999-01455-CCA-R3-PC
More informationPROFESSIONAL APPLICATION Main and Mitchell Road P. O. Box 288 Booker, TX Ph: (806)
BOOKER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL APPLICATION Main and Mitchell Road P. O. Box 288 Booker, TX 79005 Ph: (806) 658-4501 We consider applicants for all positions without regard to race, color,
More informationPOLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT
Research Division, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT Criminal Procedure April 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Detention and Arrest... 1 Detention and Arrest Under a Warrant... 1 Detention
More informationFILED: NYS COURT OF CLAIMS 02/25/ :55 PM CLAIM NO NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2016
FILED: NYS COURT OF CLAIMS 02/25/2016 04:55 PM CLAIM NO. 127564 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2016 STATE OF NEW YORK: COURT OF CLAIMS -------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN MICHAEL W. MORTON and PATRICIA A. STAPLETON, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. JOHN BRADLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY,
More informationRobert Morton v. Michelle Ricci
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-8-2009 Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1801 Follow
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00530-CR Jack Bissett, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CR-14-160011, HONORABLE
More informationRULE CHANGE 2018(05) COLORADO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE CHANGE 2018(05) COLORADO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE District Court County, Colorado Court Address: People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant Attorney or Party Without Attorney (Name and Address):
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 29, 2011 Remanded by the Supreme Court March 8, 2012
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 29, 2011 Remanded by the Supreme Court March 8, 2012 ROBERT B. LEDFORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-26,178-03 EX PARTE ARTHUR BROWN, JR. ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ST CAUSE NO. 636535-B IN THE 351 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY Per
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 25, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 25, 2005 GREGORY CHRISTOPHER FLEENOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 8, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 8, 2008 OTIS MORRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-07964 Paula
More informationBergen County Sheriff s Office
Bergen County Sheriff s Office Mounted Deputy Unit Application Name: Applications Instructions Read Carefully Before considering any individual for a position on the volunteer mounted/motorcycle units
More informationREPORT No. 80/13 1 PETITION P ADMISSIBILITY ROBERT GENE GARZA UNITED STATES September 16, 2013
REPORT No. 80/13 1 PETITION P-1278-13 ADMISSIBILITY ROBERT GENE GARZA UNITED STATES September 16, 2013 I. SUMMARY 1. On August 7, 2013, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the Inter-American
More informationCRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE ATTACHED ARE 11
Examinee Nwnber TEXAS BAR EXAMINATION PART II - A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE ATTACHED ARE 11 PAGES If EXAMINEE NO, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE Additional Instruct ions 1. Unless otherwise shown
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2012
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2012 TIMOTHY L. MORTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County No. 11-CR-9635 R. Lee Moore,
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationSECURING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT BY DECEPTION
AN ACT Relating to the fraudulent exercise of certain governmental functions and the fraudulent creation or use of certain pleadings, governmental documents, and records; providing penalties. BE IT ENACTED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: CF-1156-AXXX JAMES BELCHER, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC06-866 Lower Tribunal No.: 16-1999-CF-1156-AXXX JAMES BELCHER, Petitioner, v. JAMES R. McDONOUGH, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. PETITIONER
More informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More informationSURVIVING PRE- TRIAL HEARINGS
SURVIVING PRE- TRIAL HEARINGS Sherry M. Statman Austin Municipal Court Most Judges would rather be chased by hungry zombies Goals 1 IDENTIFY LEGAL AUTHORITY 2 DISTINGUISH PRE-TRIAL MATTERS FROM PRE-TRIAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 19, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 19, 2007 Session JAMES EDWARD HOLT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. CR 051848 Jeffrey S. Bivins,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PARKER, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-7661
More informationServing the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS 3060 Willamette Drive NE Lacey, WA 98516 ~ Phone: (360) 486-2380 ~ Fax: (360) 486-2381 ~ Website: www.waspc.org Serving the Law Enforcement Community
More informationDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 47
February 24 2009 DA 07-0343 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 47 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILBERT FISH, JR. Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Keith, 192 Ohio App.3d 231, 2011-Ohio-407.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-10-19 v. KEITH, O P I N I
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005 JOSEPH W. JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-26684 Bernie Weinman,
More informationPHARMACIST INTERN CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
Include with your application: $50 Check or money order (no cash) payable to LLR-Board Certificate# of Pharmacy. Application fee is non-refundable. A returned check fee of up to $30, or an Check # amount
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY. v. Case No CF 381 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
BY THE COURT: Case 2005CF000381 Document 989 Filed 09-06-2018 Page 1 of 11 DATE SIGNED: September 6, 2018 FILED 09-06-2018 Clerk of Circuit Court Manitowoc County, WI 2005CF000381 Electronically signed
More informationFILED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, October 29, 1999
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, 1999 FILED October 29, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9809-CC-00368 ) Appellee,
More information