likely fabricated. Bryan has always tried to destroy and come between every
relationship I've had since our divorce. He knew that he could cause.a big problem by
calling the police, and did just that. Till this day | love Kevin Brittain and trust him -
completely at my home and to be in company of my daughters with or without my
presence. He loves us and we love him deeply. | believe. Bryan called the Officer and

made false statements that Kevin had “gone crazy” and was vandalizing my home-No
wonder the Officers approached Kevin with such force when they arrived. | never saw
Bryan or Brenda make a call, so they had to have made the false calls before arriving,
as if there was anything to report. Besides, this is my home and Kevin had committed
no crime. | just didn’t want my girls there while he was getting his things. It was too hard
on all of us. | or my daughters have ever been victimalized by Kevin. He loves us, and
we love him dearly. Furthermore, | will not pursue charges on any innocent man. Bryan
and Brenda are no longer welcome on my property since this happened. Kevin is
allowed and always will be. Kevin could’ve been killed just so Bryan could do what he
does best, cause drama. Also my girls think more of Kevin as a father than Bryan

anyday.

GARY PARTIN

% Notary Public, State of Texas

‘My Commission Expires
October 02, 2015

alyis SBP,

Cktgacr" S|
Priae & 4 3



L. yidlenee collected Preoned Abe LEUITIDWERS
pvocence. LIpieh, CHUSE 4extbnece Collatcad.

pwsegulerHts, [Pe STATE ACP Ibias FRE IE SEN,

pot because The whole eocekl og 1s Pirclament-
ply uvsie but eA Den LECAUSE 70 sfc oF
ens oe soul PALE KW0wWD ot WE joneTiceMAaes
OF) he Wf AMVETS. 7a. The [AA Mage of fytz-
geealds “EE stb, Supe, pect (i> Lawveell
Vi AlabHINA, Stipe, Cppicgeriig The Sixth Arend,
9 thnwral of  assistauce Bf Cousel /s Te Jd
yy stile jwvolyenment [a petoived ok Cowes, 1 yitled
a Couwsels tpnidacl wh leh ls. paljud. ea fo .
13, be [ess fan Pe ee tl PACE
ny, Whe leral. age oR WE Oie0SECLITON 910 be
is, Siow) Ae Saul actualy Known Wnt Ayn?
iu. preittar Ole Povo 15 HECEI Mt interes ent
It. LEUCESERT ATID wav! AAkES ms penta
1, Action, he Sale ACA eeguiccment is Sat.
/4 stie, TF. they Netth, janetc ipale 10 The
FQ, yucormperenty, Jt rs eh Bo, Ztis phundawtle .
a _clenetal x louvty Couet oP Wee og to chts, PB.
a pad actual KwowledgeL 4] that pefitiowee
23, WAS RECEIVING 10 compitent heacesentr Tio
at Rael 700K wo enecdtial nehiow, ste: lasted,
~~ 25, Supen, £46 F.2d Alb 54.

hee (Dif 4)

7
a.
3,
%
Ss
é
7
g
G.

N


1 sans not tt iheely to gnoee He police pecs

1
aA
rs
4, (quoting Michignw V- Chestatwul, Yb U.S. 567, 564,
J.
&
7
m3

AMD Go Dbl Pi 3 QUSTMER A s7 0) 8 VEDI
“SDILLS. 429, 439, JMS. bb; BB A, LIS b. EA, 2d 389099)

og SLE 19%, loa b. 6. AA E65, This test's claelued
fern Juste, S¢éapets Qpinion 73) Lotte Statlis
 MendenPa, Yb 1.5, E04, 00.8 £1, 1870, 04 L.bd.
2d 197, see: Lalitoewn V, Hoctagt b., VIG 45, b2,

087-628, HM SLE, E94. U3, £1 AA 69, Ldpieh

B,_ gave sivEe nl Leltarryules. of CCU AN SCAMES
th Wat right md itate a selzuke, LUE Whee
a Me peeson gid wel attenpl to Jentlé; inscluth
ra 3 .
13, ‘ME ThRER Tin ind pecstnte ot the otiiiebor
i. threes’, the Myalay ot-awespon by An ovintes, .

1. "Some aby tical Louth ivg of Jit f26k Sow of Me.

i. til zén, 08 The L186 oF Janguage or tome of Ueite.. |

ry dlicatia Mat Complinnee with The office's .

7 Ti, kG LUG it be cormpeMed, Mendenhall .
ISU, At. sy In0.5.60, 1370, Fetitionee Comteadle

0. pn Asscels Thal Me police oP rae Lilafaudee]
a, snvestigatibe preocedaté WAS. 50 ualitatively and

39. gummbtotvel, Watlt be tame So hifeusive
33 Yor becatne diskespeltt Ful Lo. Lilitioness kighIs oF.

~ ay fecedena of mevenent, Awd paiuncy sleet —

Hue (DFO


gx
° e Ms ofa bya
Saar ratan aw
pint od ta Lats wit
f Aertel, tak port ~
if allovrilora

ured ore!
My $5 ’ ple ,
oe To fl
th hte a ld -
, 5 Hoe puree.
le SM

toes 4
(Anse SO, £12.-19Sle2-A

Zags


4 -

PROBLEM IS TOTALLY BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION: FROM

~ LISTENING TO THE RADIO TRAFFIC ON THE VIDEO, RARTIN CAN
HEAR THE CALL SOUNDING VERY SERIOUS.. WHEN MOLANDERS:
PULLS UP TO“FHE SCENE, KEVIN BRITTIAN AND BRYAN
LOUDENSLAGER ARE STANDING ON. THE SIDEWALK BY

oo “THEMSELVES HAVING WHAT APPEARS TO BE A
CONVERSATION. MOLANDERS STOPS A SHORT DISTANCE FROM. .
THE.TWO MEN AND THEN WALKS UP DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE
TWO MEN HE MOST LIKELY DOES NOT KNOW. HE NEXT HAS A
WORD OR TWO WITH A FEMALE BELIEVED TO BE JANICE
LOUDENSLAGER. MOLANDERS THEN ATTEMPTS TO APPROACH
THE TWO MEN AND KEVIN BRITTIAN BEGINS TO MOVE AWAY
FROM MOLANDERS. THERE IS NO SOUND ON THE VIDEO. ALL OF
A SUDDEN THINGS GET CRAZY AND BRITTIAN KEEPS MOVING
AWAY FROM MOLANDERS. MOLANDERS CAN BE SEEN
DRAWING HIS DUTY FIREARM AND THEN A VERY SHORT TIME
LATER REHOLSTERING THE WEAPON. THIS ACTION CAUSES

.~ PARTIN TO BELIEVE BRITTIAN HAS DISCARDED THE KNIFE AS
ORDERED BY MOLANDERS. MOLANDERS ARRIVED’ AT THE

' LOCATION AT 1829.HOURS. AFTER SHORT VERBAL CONTACTS
_ WITH AT LEAST THREE PERSONS AT 1829:56, MOLANDERS
. DRAWS HIS FIREARM (APPEARS TO BE GIVING VERBAL

COMMANDS) THEN REHOLSTERS HIS WEAPON AT 1830:17 (A
SIGN THAT BRITTIAN HAS DISCARDED THE KNIFE, FOLLOWING
MOLANDERS’ ORDERS). MOLANDERS HAS HIS WEAPON OUT OF
THE HOLSTER FOR TWENTY ONE SECONDS ONLY.TWENTY ONE
SECONDS SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY FAST RESPONSE TIME TO GET
RID OF A WEAPON.

an gise
2
Caen


| Dttonee Assets nud! contends That Pi).
Lounsel id mot’ Ask We £ WELESSALY FE fous

iL,
2.
3 luting Voie Hee BUDE EARP OAT ORO
gy, DRE. Witness e®,, 9/50, FT b: TORREY Tia.
5s dames Ad phil to pelpae bE Satety or
4. Whe DUT COIIVE of He Aatierones Lofts,
» by wel Que SCION NM Dt WIPUESSES fhe
8..THE Let rat Lit Oot ee fork
4 DSCOUERY. Aeasio which is Toe PELTDWES.
p. ehtes 1b Due /ROLESS 07 A Law. iat would PAVE.
I. dewducte A. legal, 120 cecaling ELIA
a kills nid pei nelgles. Pret pocenTion
13. Anil EWPaece MENT oF, pelea i: 7, oe

n, putt iitwvs peice Ape eeighe Pre
ys. bening Bef bee Ar puis WA the ewte Ld.

ee eth Whe CASE, POLIMIDNER. Jas Ol of ee cuits.

2 Xo pene Pls (WO lCEMSE DN Be Puse ong oo
i 5 Hat He Aediowee (spageseni 2/1 Zo tire |
19, Per. Lich did in Fact Cove Se Dp he MEE

3b, Couse/ok L Zim Jamesl, TAs JeAVES.

ay, 2tL ower Hee to belicut Hhat We ohn Loget

_ 2. ‘Condlutl was 8b.Bul AGERUS; Pat wb Cham-

. ent aPpivey WwbUlAa PAVE engaged so
ay, See: Godspeed vs. STATE, 157, 5.04 Ja, 390
~ Bu. 39a, lTex Cem, (fp: 2065). oe

ce OYA


[he tppdpiftdd ink aelideinshp fp
ol x Lilac tac f Maud [dee bid 'e'gp.i-3)_ feet !),

ba teeta (ho) "tal th tom probe rt ype
frdeeocn Butts yonil,.” Tan lds Pal pt,
tlncl hee fe hangs haba cela
ib Sth Soto teelty dal diana ny, fas
Ht : area

Yt , %

rae eelbceinosl al palldccst too

Wet bay stk. dhe
sie ate “Cra nrtthsae Oo ee
gteted thet Me. Bethan pull th A ruffe tu terd Aung
of the depicts," (Sex Exhabit’ fi!) Eph sa
olnttin Ke wate ett Me

adi



Cause No. Fizigsz-A (L)

LON sy Aly
Wc Teens Conmstitl io Rov ies Bud

2 He te prenple shall be sécute tw Mele feesonds
5 LN DES AIA OES ESS TOMS VRB POW PER PSIS
y, pble Siz uces pe SeARCAES, Arid Vo Wace
5,0 Senech AN) ace, a Zepetae re vo eeSD1O
4 Cen. , SAO Issue without desceybiy

1 Dean 3 SUEHIR 10S (V4 Lé, Mor wiboutd ;

8, aeobable CAUSE, Seupfooe Leo/ by oe Aen

% At pro. TEX, Const ARTS §G.,

Lb, alae flees Angas
Kati tiene PSSERUS 2 Covtzads tatu .
2, Pe beelupl oh nite Ms dyuicdve's. 1 the hame
13, OF 1s, Tansee Louden S14 gER Aa KE. ‘in EeMin
Mh ager cee Uolawdees Vit ota he Ké Get ov Kee

16. Berle Lf/} ALL DELM ore) 2 Zo Tex Lows, ast Zi§F, APED
4 offices W/V, o27 LI MO? jtlent thy Bimse he

n, woe obi Wh) anther state is lease) Pe
1, Letwn Pete fle Loin: Seva 30 Relig

-- Ai, OL VEL 7 Alon a G Bid | Dad by O55 ~aotee(
A, LAR. Be ob fective Lest IVA Loosewsual EnICOLIMTR
ah Ws Let [7a Le ZespivAat|efIERS DI would Pbk.

2a, Dat hewesne Puce te oo. Tet lows ALE Sugg
 93.estons phe te Jaw Eappecenment een

a Lh A Consensual Eleurtee,

true ef @). —



INVESTIGATION REPORT .
CLIENT: KEVIN BRITTIAN mn vests Lane”

Gey Aeron -

DATE: 128/12”

AFTER REVIEWING ALL ORIGINAL STATEMENTS, VIEWING THE _
VIDEO AND INTERVIEWING PERSONS WITH FIRST HAND:
KNOWLEDGE OF THE BRIEF TIME PERIOD OF THE ALLEGED
ASSAULT OF A PEACE OFFICER, PARTIN CAN.ONLY FIND ONE
MENTION OF A LUNGE OR ANY MOTION TOWARDS DEPUTY
MOLANDERS IN ALL THE INFORMATION GATHERED. THIS WAS
«TWO SENTENCES IN THE PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT
PREPARED BY DEPUTY MCDONALD, WHO WAS NOT PRESENT IN
THE TIME PERIOD THE ACT IS ALLEGED. MCDONALD STATED
“DEPUTY MOLANDERS ORDERED THE. DEFENDANT TO DROP
THE KNIFE’. ‘THE DEFENDANT OPENED THE KNIFE AND LUNGED

~ TOWARDS DEPUTY MOLANDERS”. “THE DEFENDANT THEN
THREW THE KNIFE INTO THE FLOWER BED.IN FRONT-OF.THE
_RESIDENCE”. NO OTHER PERSON SUBMITTING A STATEMENT
MADE MENTION OF A LUNGING TOWARDS THE DEPUTY
MOLANDERS. ONE PORTION OF THE CASE REPORT AS
SUBMITTED BY MCDONALD REFERS TO BRITTIAN LUNGING
AND THROWING AWAY THE KNIFE. IT APPEARS THAT KEVIN
BRITTIAN WAS ATTEMPTING TO KEEP THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
HIMSELF AND DEPUTY MOLANDERS GREAT ENOUGH THAT
MOLANDERS COULD NOT PEPPER SPRAY OR TAZE HIM. PARTIN
NOTED NO ACTION OF DEPUTY MOLANDERS TO RETREAT BACK
FROM A LUNGE WITH KNIFE: THE ACTION NOTED ON THE
VIDEO WAS MOLANDERS REHOLSTERING HIS DUTY FIREARM
AND THEN ADVANCING RAPIDLY IN THE DIRECTION BRITTIAN
IS LOCATED AT THIS TIME. THE EX-HUSBAND OF JANICE
LOUDENSLAGER GRABBED THE LEFT ARM OF KEVIN BRITTIAN
AFTER BRITTIAN THROWS AWAY THE KNIFE AND HELD

_ BRITTIAN IN A FIXED POSITION UNTIL DEPUTY MOLANDERS
COULD RUN TO THE SPOT BRITTIAN AND LAGENSLAGER WERE
STRUGGLING AND JUMP ON BRITTIAN IN AN ATTEMPT TO
“TAKE BRITTIAN TO THE GROUND”. THE ATTEMPT OF
MOLANDERS TO TAKE DOWN BRITTIAN WAS SLIGHTLY

Exuresr'C 0149
Pree | iq 7


LEAST TWO PERSONS TO HAVE LANDED ON HIS RIGHT
SHOULDER AS HE FELL ON TOP OF BRITTIAN. ~
DEPUTY AUSTIN MCDONALD, MAY HAVE A YEAR ON THE

STREETS WITH NCSO. HE WAS A RESERVE FOR A WHILE AND

— MAY HAVE WORKED IN THE JAIL. MCDONALD OFTEN RODE

WITH SEVERAL OFFICERS WHILE HE WAS A RESERVE. HE IS
MOST LIKELY A BETTER DEPUTY THAN MOLANDERS.
MCDONALD COMES FROM A TROUBLED HOME IN GARRISON
WITH PARENTS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE. HE IS
A PERSON WELL KNOWN TO PARTIN. AUSTIN MCDONALD WAS
RAISED BY HIS PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS WHO WERE GOOD
CHRISTIAN PEOPLE.

DEPUTY 525 WHO WAS THE LAST DEPUTY TO RESPOND TO THIS
LOCATION IS A PERSON UNKNOWN BY PARTIN. HIS ACTIONS ON
THE VIDEOS CAUSE PARTIN TO BELIEVE HE IS AN EXPERIENCED
_» STREET OFFICER.

THE DISPATCHER WORKING THIS EVENT IS SAID TO BE COLTON
MURRAY WHO IS CURRENTLY WORKING NIGHTS AT THE NCSO
LEC JAIL. AFTER PARTIN LEARNS MORE ABOUT THE PHONE
CALLS BETWEEN ALYSSA LOUDENLAGER AND BRYAN
LOUDENLAGER, PARTIN WILL ATTEMPT TO INTERVIEW
MURRAY.

016
04.7 iK7 10 4


BRYAN LOUDENSLAGER STARTED YELLING REPEATEDLY “HE’S
GOT A KNIFE”! “HE’S GOT A KNIFE”! OTHER WORDS WERE SAID
BY LOUDENSLAGER SUCH AS “GET DOWN, HE’S GONNA SHOOT ~
HIM”! BRITTIAN THREW THE KNIFE AS FAR AWAY FROM
HIMSELF AS HE COULD AND ASKED DEPUTY MOLANDERS

DON’T SHOOT ME, [HAVE A LITTLE SON AT HOME, PLEASE
DON’T SHOOT ME! ABOUT THIS TIME, BRYAN LOUDENSLAGER
GRABS BRITTIAN BY THE LEFT ARM AND HOLDS BRITTIAN
UNTIL DEPUTY MOLANDERS CAN ADVANCE AND JUMP ON
BRITTIAN AFTER HAVING REHOLSTERED HIS DUTY FIREARM.
MOLANDERS ENDS UP TANGLED UP WITH BRITTIAN AND
LOUDENSLAGER ON THE GROUND. MOLANDERS FALLS ON THE
GROUND AND HURTS HIS SHOULDER. LOUDENSLAGER
ATTEMPTS TO GET BRITTIAN’S ARMS BEHIND HIS BACK TO
CUFF BRITTIAN, BUT THE INJURED DEPUTY IS LAYING ON
BRITTIAN IN SUCH A MANNER THAT HOLDS BRITTIAN’S ARMS
IN A FIXED POSITION. ABOUT THIS TIME, DEPUTY MCDONALD

“ARRIVES ON THE SCENE AND IS TOLD BY BRYAN
LOUDENSLAGER “TAZE HIM”! TAZE HIM”! MCDONALD TAZES
BRITTIAN. SEVERAL TIMES AND THE BODIES BECOME
UNTANGLED. BRITTIAN IS SUBDUED AND PLACED IN THE
PATROL UNIT OF MCDONALD.

PARTIN BELIEVES THAT BRYAN LOUDENSLAGER RECEIVES A
TELEPHONE CALL FROM ALYSSA LOUDENSLAGER TO COME
GET THE TWO GIRLS WHILE JANICE LOUDENSLAGER AND
KEVIN BRITTIAN TRY TO WORK OUT THEIR PERSONAL
PROBLEMS WITHOUT THE TWO YOUNG GIRLS BEING PRESENT.
BRYAN LOUDENSLAGER CALLS 911 AND ADDS TO THE STORY
ENOUGH TO CAUSE DISPATCH TO BELIEVE THERE IS A
DISTURBANCE IN PROGRESS AT 2009 CR 411 EVEN THOUGH HE
IS NOT PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION. WHEN BRYAN
LOUDENSLAGER RECEIVES A SECOND CALL FROM ALYSSA TO
CHECK TO SEE IF HE DID GET STARTED TO THE HOUSE, HE
TAKES WHAT INFORMATION ALYSSA GIVES HIM AND ADDS TO
THAT STORY WHEN HE CALLS BACK TO 911. THE INFORMATION
NOW GIVEN TO DISPATCH IS THAT KEVIN BRITTIAN HAS GONE
CRAZY AND IS VANDALIZING THE HOUSE AND DISPATCH
PASSES THAT INFORMATION ON TO THE YOUNG
INEXPERIENCED PATROL DEPUTIES. BY THIS TIME THE

Exwsscr 0" Q151


a

1 Coasttiliounl haus, The gonc3wsests tial.

oo. _a ve Pectue atguls/ Liew bt pciaile pregpaely. ———

_ 3 eihea by oust ii WE BusEe BRAG DET EE PAG — cotta

— 1, the peojoeety ne Sev Exely Lnjantilig Os Utllty,

5, Went 13 A. taking or ka pPeEeTY Lew. ceinUnde
—  acbion dite tly (uteetenes ttth 0 Sub STAT AMY

4 aistuebs Tht LWMER'S. Use Anni enjoy nearer a

*, De pense y, (430 teamed cousiititioval takivg), ee
4. VAETE LIV) Arend nent, states Prat Juo..
1, Leeson: Shall be dewred The tight 70 QE SECUCE.
[). /@) Wtie ER S0US, PONTE, APES AUN EVILS,
Wh. Agaiwst umrensorrle SERCHES UO SEI BLNES,
8. PAM wet be Violated, aud vo Lager) s Sip!
1. (sue, but upon probable truse, sujgpoeted
18, by Qa 02 atbeination, Aud poachiulacly esto -
jk. 1g te place 1s be StncthEe, ped fhe PERSO
12.28 Wh /ngs Ps be selzed, Tex, Lovst, JT, ),§4
13. The“ce was (a tuct a Metal Sentth & SELSUCE
, atthe pome ot Kevin ¢ Tanice See Kaugo hk
ao, TEAS 538 215, 629 li 19va-reve), A séizuce of te
, peeson withio The menrving ot the foueth and
a. forctccath flmendment  occues when, Zakiog
23, Into ateouvt AN of Whe Cieiun STANLES SesceDuniyinlg
a We cntumtbe, The police tonduct would Aare”
~ as bemmuni tated to A pensnwable peeson Tat pen...

we eee tenth ecm ements a memes Faye @® X @) cow ee nee cence


7 Sarees TT
AcccGen COmPLAtNAST
9-9-2012 .

|, Janice E. Loudenslager, was at my residence at 2009.CR 411. Kevin Brittain arrived
at my house at or around 9:30 A.M. as | was getting ready for church. We had decided
to break up after a’2 plus year relationship and were separating. He calmly:and kindly

asked-me-ifhe-could et-his-belongingsEx:—clothes,.bibles,-shoes,.ect,)_asked_him_to
hurry and he began to raise his voice at me. When he walked outside with some of his
belongings, | closed and locked the door behind him. He stayed outside for about
another five minutes, then he left in the direction of his parent's house, who live just
down the road from my house. | left and attended church. At approximately 6:00P.M.,
Kevin came back to my house, unaware that my two daughters Alyssa Loudenslager
and Adysson Loudenslager were at home with me. I was standing in my kitchen when
he knocked _.on my front door. | walked into the living room where Alyssa was sitting in
the livingroom floor cutting out pictures for her science project. | opened the front door
and Kevin asked to get the remainder of his things, ! let him in. | didn’t want to have any
altercations with Kevin with my daughters there, as we have both agreed to keep our
differences away from the girls. | could tell Kevin-was emotionally upset. As he got his

_things, we were both crying and emotional. Adysson, walked up to Kevin and asked

“where is Kolten?” (Kevin’s son) “He is with my parents and | just have some things |
need to get.” He walked into the kitchen and asked me for a trash bag out of the utility
room to put his clothes in. | said “yes” and that | would help him. | waited for him to get a
bag. Kevin's class ring and a pocket knife were laying on my bar. | handed them both to
him and he put them both in his shorts packet. The longer he was there the more
emotional we all became. Kevin walked into our bedroom and opened the chest of
drawers where he kept his clothes and began to get them out and putting them into the
bag. He walked back into the living room and sat down the bag still looking for all his
belongings. | asked him to hurry and that seemed to frustrate him. | could tell he was
hurt, | was hurt. The girls were watching and crying. We had been a family for over two
years. It was hard to do, especially for my girls. | asked Alyssa to call her dad (Bryan
Loudenslager) with the sole intention to have him come over and pick up them and and
take them home with him, in order to let Kevin and I talk through things without my girls
being present. Alyssa did as | asked. Kevin overheard this and got very upset, not
knowing my intentions, | suppose. Kevin has never liked the character of Bryan and
always tolerated him for the girls. He began to raise his voice at me wanting to know
what | was thinking by calling someone like Bryan at a time like this. Kevin began
looking around his room for his things. He lifted the couch looking for the ipad he bought
me as a gift, because | sometimes slide it under the couch. Things seemed to become
more and more tense, so | again asked Alyssa to call her daddy and make sure he was
coming. She did as | asked her. About ten minutes later Bryan and Brenda, his wife,
arrived. At this point everyone was upset. Brenda came into the house to get the girls
and Bryan stood at the door. Kevin and Bryan walked into the front yard and began

_ Extsecr ‘Eg
© foe 1 42


ey Mong > a,
jynwlbaolang dod at wrth drcteleix (lle 103 ond

nN , 2 yi ps fi
2.04 (O) 6] the [epee be plana Yide if Vagfooinet
any fale tol docimenb, Mo elle

: ‘en budnatlel b5 he Ube deeiols


3. Mr. Brittain had ample t time to talk with any other lawyer and we in fact

ged him to do so, to see if anyone else had any ideas that would be of benefit. |,do not

enol Rather he spoke with anyone else, but there were no other alternatives other than to try

his case to a jury. We set this case for a Motion to Suppress. The incriminating film containing

‘Sy my . . . .
aa “the confession, was the main evidence. The Motion was overruled by the judge and the case

was then set on the jury trial docket. It was then up to Mr. Brittain as to whether he wished to go
to a Jury trial. He continued to ask us our opinion and we continued to tell him that he was

probably going to lose the case based on the statements contained in the tape and the

testimony of the two Deputy sheriffs and the adverse eye witness. We also explained this to his |

i te Aeon sw A
family. an klk de ot (
” ae, ae Wiggs NOY
- a 4. Mr. Brittain's f ‘Ss fath was. not.an investigator for the District Attorney's office an d

for a Change of Venue or a Motion to Recuse the Judge. A .
: ne a a ne)
5. After the adverse ruling on the Motion to Suppress, the next'step in the case

would be the trial of the case. A Motion to Suppress cannot be appealed by the defendant
iv

before trial, but must be carried along through the trial and made a part of any subsequent a
Y

appeal if there is an adverse verdict at trial.

6. In evaluating the case, it was obvious after investigation, after reports, after
extensive work, (all of which is reflected in our file) that Mr. Brittain would have a very difficult
time obtaining an acquittal from a Jury. This was based on.the facts of the case,-not on the fact

hat the person. assaulted was a policeman. Those factors

that F he had a prior convictio

would probably play into some of the decision-making by a jury, but in a case of this nature, the

big dilemma would be whether or not Mr. Brittain would choose to testify because by doing so

Gumgrr 6
fe.kh Ws


life sentence if he did not take the five year sentence that the State was offering. The
Applicant also claims that he did not have time to look for another lawyer because his
attorney used up all of his available time on the case. His trial counsel, Tim James is
Board Certified in criminal law. Based on the affidavit of Mr. James (attached as Exhibit

\

3.

nor that he would r receive a sentence of 99 years or life in prison. ‘Based on the affidavit
of Mr. James, the Court finds that the Applicant was given several months to consider
the 5 year plea bargain and that he was advised by Mr. James to talk to other attorneys
about his case.

In Ground Two, the Applicant claims that his father is an investigator for the
Nacogdoches District Attorney's Office. The court finds that his father is an investigator
for the Nacogdoches County Attorney's Office. Therefore, the claim regarding his
father’s employment is false. The Applicant goes on to claim that his father had
detained both the District Attorney and me during a disturbance. This is absolutely false.
There has never been any disturbance involving me and the District Attorney. The
Applicant claims that his attorney knew all of this and said that he would file a motion to
have the case transferred to another court; however he failed to do this. Based on the
attorney's affidavit, the Court finds that this claim is false.

* Furthermore, the applicant’s father did detain me once but it had nothing to do with the

j District Attorney. Here are the details of that temporary detention. In either 1978 or

5.

1979 a group of fifteen to twenty teenage boys, including myself, gathered after a Key
Club meeting to watch two other boys race their cars on the Loop in Nacogdoches. After
the two boys raced by, Officer Brittain (the Applicant’s father, then an officer for the
Nacogdoches Police Department) drove up beside the group and detained all of us. We
were instructed to drive to the police station. We did as we were told. At the police
station, two of us asked to see a copy of the law that they were holding us under. They
indicated that they were holding us for “participating” in an illegal street race. We
pointed out that we were merely observing and not participating. The officers agreed
and let us go. Ever since then the Applicant's father and I have often joked that he is the
only person to arrest this District Judge. Investigator Brittain and | have a good

‘relationship and kid each other on a regular basis. There are no hard feelings by me that
would prevent this Applicant from receiving a fair trial in my court.

ee 4. In Ground Three, the Applicant complains that his counsel failed to appeal the fact that |

denied a motion to suppress. The counsel could not appeal because part of the 5 year
plea bargain offer was that the Applicant would not appeal the denial of his motion to
suppress. (See the Applicant's Certification regarding appeal marked as Exhibit 2.) The
Applicant’s attorney asked me at some point to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law regarding the motion to suppress. | did so and they are marked as Exhibit Three.

The Applicant complains in Ground Four that his attorney told him that he could not win

his case due to the facts of his prior felony conviction, that the jury would be older
Republicans, and because the victim was a “cop”. In his affidavit Mr. James states that in

Exucarr €
R243


thee io NO MENTION made Jf |

bmg Aurgee ro
Liccred dept, Wolerdao made with the brie. a
beoal.cte aly Ln deenesins 6 OX (ety

a), Yr bua vetbrses, Dos et toudld net le

wahssead th. Alleged. svege with thee
edt hd fe
den iffidest prt (2) | Atlermayfirer Un tht be
littl ely Oe pa thoog “er 2
Het the Vt igs (Ap wok
neces tend (itis
bbe thr bated tnd spol fe hin. Ap pelbletnd
Llblied uuithgale, br fiedin, Gane bordirng J
Ti ener a
a o/
pa biaen, (or Load MeN bagi

Aitinut Voi Lovinlage, the spel bertadel
fy. if'2



to, "ic Aseriosing A inginel Milinerd, drasccng
Ga foce fin, Fdin bin ny foie! ONE ME T=

Aolerdessir-tll Che tral actn gethocd
ne rn Chace iypeeest

thartime persel th at £, pbleged- "(Sec

Fgthamercy inthe Vihatlng Stebnud (Sptth t2)
A. S513



talking as I, Brenda, and my two daughters stayed inside. Kevin and Bryan calmly
spoke in the front yard for about five to seven minutes when the police car came.
barreling into my driveway. | was instantly aggravated, because | knew that Bryan and
Brenda must have called them and that is something | did not want to happen. It was
uncalled for. | was completely unaware that the officers were called. The officer asked

me if we were ok and | said “yes, we are all just fine.” He walked over to Bryan and
Kevin. They were still having a calm conversation. | saw the Officer put his hand over
his pistol and also, | think on his pepper spray. Kevin obviously saw too, and started
backing away from the officer slowly into the yard. | could see Kevin's’ face was
nervous. Kevin stepped at least eighteen to twenty feet from the Officer while the Officer
stood still. Then the Officer pulled and pointed his pistol at Kevin and began to yell for
Kevin to get on the ground. Kevin said “You haven't even told me what I’ve done.
Please put the pistol away!” Kevin had his hands in the air and | was terrified that the
Officer was going to shoot Kevin, Kevin was terrified too. Kevin pleaded with the Officer
to put the gun away and that he was unarmed. The Officer asked for any weapons,
Kevin responded “No, but I do have a pocket knife you would consider a weapon.” Then
said “If | get it out | am afraid you will shoot me” the officer screamed for Kevin to get the
knife out and throw it. Kevin complied and asked the officer not to shoot. Kevin pulled
the knife out of his right bottom pocket of his shorts, the same one | had given him
moments before in the kitchen. Bryan began to scream “He’s got a knife” and “he’s
going to shoot him, get inside the house.” That made everyone very nervous. Bryan was
standing probably five to eight feet from the Officer. The Officer told Kevin he was about
to shoot him and Kevin threw the knife away so hard it bounced off the house to the
tight of Kevin. Kevin didn’t charge or lunge at anyone with the knife. He was scared and
‘threw it instantly. | could fell Kevin was terrified. | was terrified. It was horrible to see him
this way. Kevin raised his hands, palms up opened and slowly walked towards the
Officer. When Kevin was eight to ten feet away from the officer Bryan grabbed Kevin by
the arm and the Officer holstered his gun and “bulldogged” Kevin so hard. Kevin slid
three to five feet on his back across the yard. Bryan jumped on Kevin and tried twisting
his-arm behind him. The officer was lying on Kevin as well. Never did the Officer ask for
Bryan's help. The second Officer arrived and Bryan started yelling “Taze him, taze
him!” and they did over and over and over again. Then Bryan jumped in and started
trying to twist Kevin’s arm behind him again when he was flat on his back. During that
time the second Officer arrived and ran up to them. He hand cuffed Kevin and started
Tazing and shocking him over and over again. Kevin’s body was locking up. They pulled
Kevin up by the handcuffs and tazed him more. Kevin could hardly walk. Kevin has
never even acted like would do any harm to me or the girls, and he did not deserve this
at-all. Kevin has never been anything but a very loving father figure and is my very best
friend, who | love dearly. The police should have never been called and '| strongly
believe that the calls made against Kevin by Bryan / Brenda were unnecessary and very

Cunsarr
fy.252


fore Hits thel,
sai et wim fee

Von at Wolin &
aaa, -

cls | fold pink (6), li dtling foe, tha

A bruce
AAT aie

(Aone tom Ot Ue peceor
tabled voto ifn) on Ml thence,
ah fost 6, Soiiptoned

fics hor. ofruvcatiels. pacts,
po A I idan oh.

0) barby
pein Mie ee

Le tel dabetntedey tran tinec poder “

a <gis


1838:59 (CONVERSATION BETWEEEN OFFICERS AND BURL
EVANS) “HE’S GOING TO JAIL, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON
PEACE OFFICER WITH A KNIFE AND BURGLARY HABITATION”

1839:35 CONVERSATION BETWEEN OFFICERS? “WE? VE GOT BOH

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON PEACE OFFICER” “NOBODY GOT

INJURED BUT”

1843 46 MCDONALD LEAVES SCENE TO TRANSPORT BRITTIAN
TO JAIL.

AT NO PLACE IN THE VIDEO TAKEN BY MOLANDERS* UNIT
COULD ANY INDICATION OF A “LUNGE” BE SEEN AS
MOLANDERS SAID KEVIN BRITTIAN DID WITH THE KNIFE.
DURING THE TIME MOLANDERS ADVISED BRITTIAN LUNGED
WITH THE KNIFE, MOLANDERS WAS IN. THE PROCESS OF
PUTTING HIS SIDEARM BACK IN THE DUTY HOLSTER. IF A

.LUNGE WITH A KNIFE HAD OCCURRED AT ANY TIME DURING

AN ARREST, IT IS UNREASONABLE THAT AN OFFICER COULD
REHOLSTER HIS WEAPON AND PROCEED TO TAKE A SUSPECT
TO THE GROUND BY JUMPING PHYSICALLY ON THE SUSPECT.

NO MIRANDA WARNING NOTED MCDONALD ASKED
QUESTIONS DURING TRANSPORT

CHARGES ACTUALLLY FILED

CRIMINAL TRESPASS “A”

RESISTING ARREST OR TRANSPORT “A”

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT OF PUBLIC SERVANT “F1”

THE PLAYERS IN THIS INCIDENT ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
KEVIN LEE BRITTIAN, WM, 7/1/75 ALLEGED ACTOR

JANICE EDWINDA EMERSON LOUDENLAGER, WF, 11/22/72,
ALLEGED VICTIM

One ers,


fs lee Bullac. 20 Muck, 201

-Ol
7 Des * (915223, Gict Lbpet ZB, 0027-
2295 Fim 3814
Beaumst TR 77705-2088

rel Meh (leo, Wee

lt aie ip _AEQEVED
(230% WR 14.25
ome Tk 787I\- 2308 sera oa
RE: Cause No. E1zi9se2-A
Dow Wi. lect,
) Meminindm 1
fir CCA fla seen #7] pipe Lie.
Con puri Gnd,

J, Ke & HSL cteed fogs! ite
° shale fal Halen fy 5 wilh, Te ees Leon tebe,

i i ai al’
Haled tauee “

ees aguecbg hc Ltt led ex Pere



pave de peng C Vey Lk de

fe enka [ek ntl

ballets guarin tha baat ably
All (ie


Ascadee borg ullicaip bicern Ther fupe tod Prsatte/
Ife 7 ofelye Uegl Lver. Spee 2D gully el iyples

thet in.sfedl dora tpl todd fue WAT Y fadly Ce
lay Hound’ bad eptinocblye elo rah tye this

t vor wit. $4 Mik .
Nop ie et inline inl
hated be op I ala St fp
phy ame pln iio avait oil od
ha if te He Applic oul tie betel

Mo

| ol accatjeles [Mex | 2 Batten, terol Mllaay

ee doagte Uiieed, ited lout Neveglhe

fester bth lnc pedal aims

[feca B tan fay bg br, tesa Ane, (és Che
he took UL. bate fit» borin te sect lee

fh. 06 13 .

Akhter


NO. F42-19562-A

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 145TM DISTRICT COURT
§
oe =v8— ae See Ge OE
§
KEVIN LEE BRITTAIN § | NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT

_ that it had opened accidentally as he was pulling out. One witness even stated that Mr. Brittain

My name is Tim James, | am an attorney in Nacogdoches, Texas. | am a Board Certified
criminal defense lawyer and | have been practicing for 45 years. | am making this affidavit freely

and voluntarily and am stating as follows:

Ke
1. | took this case (fo bond) out of respect for Kevin Brittain's family. From the
es
earliest time, | informed him that he had significant exposure because of the fact that he did
have a knife anu. he was recorded after his arrest at the patrol car telling the arresting officer

that when the officer pulls a gun on him he will pull his knife on the officer. He then apologized
vies taSubit Mehndi is, que 5 why woo |

the officer.
to the a

We interviewed all of the witnesses and the arresting officers and it appeared from all of

the witness statements, that either the witnesses did not see the actual confrontation with the

knife or did_not agree with Mr. Brittain's version that he only threw the knife in a flower bed and

pulled the knife out and lunged at the Deputy. We reviewed the videotape and based on the

tape and the witness statements, we again emphasized to Mr. Brittain that this was avery
Ke wh copy pt fee pat, ke eA | he wordy oh sh a

\ \
Sragwee K ook y tfo fe wobbny

2. We negotiated the State's offer from 15 years down to 5 years, which was the

serious case.

minimum for an enhanced Assault on a Public Servant case. We relayed this offer to Mr. Brittain

several months before his plea and continued to meet with him and discuss the case.
“old we ~ CASE worfol be adrcprostel + IN weakS



his opinion the Applicant would have had a difficult time obtaining an acquittal due to
the facts of the case. This includes the statements of the officers involved and the tape
including the statement of the Applicant. He states that one of the eye witnesses stated
that they saw the Applicant lung at an officer with a knife (which is the crux of the
indictment). He also was concerned with the fact.that ifthe Applicant.took the stand.the.

State could use his prior felony conviction to impeach him. He states that the Applicant
made the decision to take the 5 year plea bargain because he knew that a jury verdict
would place him in prison far longer than the minimum which he received. The Court
finds that the Applicant decided to plea due to the facts of the case and because of the
fact that the State could have used his prior conviction to impeach him. There was no
unfair coercion by his counsel.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. In Ground One, the Applicant makes factual claims about his trial attorney that if true
would most likely constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the Court finds
these factual allegations to be false, therefore the Court does not have to make any
conclusions of law as to these allegations.

2. The same points made in Ground One apply to Ground Two.

3. In Ground Three, the Applicant claims that his attorney should have appealed the trial
Court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. As mentioned in the findings the
attorney could not appeal the Court’s ruling because it was part of the plea bargain that
the Applicant was giving up his right to appeal all issues. Therefore there was no
ineffectiveness of counsel.

4. In Ground Four, the same points made in Grounds One and Two apply to Ground Four.

A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Honorable Nicole Lostracco, District Attorney

for the 145" Judicial District Court and the Applicant, Kevin Lee Brittain, TDCJ
#1915233, Larry Gist Unit, 3295 FM 3514, Beaumont, TX 77705.

Signed and entered this the day of February, 2015.

CAMPBELL COX
DISTRICT JUDGE

Exnrarr €-
(GB KS


pide
WM lel (Seok.

Uf the

ick”

Alege

Drighed

BryeLeedonclapee )
Lhe btone.
a Loen tit
- Wz
fx
ate
“i
4 re
How Epoch toy tordaner tleik

tt ee |
fts
(hi
a 2
aT “!
Wize the, =
oo
Riz
rrp

beer. S\ there
~f
Uhre rrr hive tes hoped
20.
nen,
ere LK
theft
a
Miple
ae
lad becion,

4) i]
oh poet (4.
Shelaveve..

fee

tits,

hego

hey

PAL

ea
ae
Aeltrdgp
e4e
ve.
Od.
Butta tnd
of

had
Fhe
hee.

proce lp

Hed?

doce.

beneman

ed

ha. her

|
Ae!
y ted". “
p-
ffi

fa

ly.

fetio Metacnd/.

ofh

ee

he

oYplipne
(fete

bod dx

bpehrak.

(3
4
2


MISCALCULATED AND MOLANDERS FELL TO THE GROUND
— LANDING ON HIS SHOULDER, THEREBY INJURING HIMSELF.

IN THE REPORT, MCDONALD WRITES “DEPUTY MOLANDERS
ORDERED KEVIN TO DROP THE KNIFE AS KEVIN WAS BACKING

———— AWAY FROM DEPUTY MOLANDERS- KEVIN THEN LUNGED AT
DEPUTY MOLANDERS AND TOSSED THE KNIFE INTO THE .
FLOWER BED.” IT APPEARS THAT BRITTIAN CONTINUED TO
MOVE AWAY FROM MOLANDERS DURING THE ENTIRE ACTION
UNTIL BRITTIAN WAS GRABBED BY BRYAN LAGENSLAGER. IT
SEEMS LAGENSLAGER MADE THE INITIAL ASSAULT ON
BRITTIAN, HOLDING HIM UNTIL MOLANDERS COULD CATCH UP
WITH BRITTIAN AND ATTEMPT TO TAKE HIM TO THE GROUND.
BY WITNESS STATEMENTS AND OFFICERS STATEMENTS, KEVIN
BRITTIAN NEVER ATTEMPTED PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH
DEPUTY MOLANDERS, BUT CONTINUED TO KEEP A DISTANCE
SAFE FROM THE PEPER SPRAY OR TAZER OF MOLANDERS.

~PARTIN BELIEVES BRITTIAN DID NOT LUNGE AT MOLANDERS
AT ALL, BUT CONTINUED MOVING OUT OF RANGE OF THE
PEPER SPRAY. BRITTIAN DID THROW THE KNIFE AWAY FROM
— HIS POSSESSION IN A RAPID MANNER IN THE FEW SECONDS THE

ENTIRE INCIDENT LASTED. TWO WITNESSES STATE THAT
BRITTIAN BEGAN TO WALK TOWARD MOLANDERS WITH HIS
HAND EXTENDED PALMS UP TO SURRENDER WHEN BRYAN
LOUDENSLAGER GRABBED BRITTIAN’S ARM AND BEGAN TO
STRUGGLE WITH BRITTIAN. THE ENTIRE INCIDENT LASTED
VERY FEW SECONDS.

THE ORIGINAL REPORT HAS. MANY FALSEHOODS. WRITTEN INTO.
THE BODY OF THE REPORT. THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
VIDEO, EVEN THOUGH DOES NOT SHOW 100 PER CENT OF THE
INCIDENT DOES DISPLAY ENOUGH TO SHOW THE FALSEHOOD
ENTERED BY THE SUBMITTING DEPUTY.

AS FOR THE KNIFE SAID TO HAVE BEEN USED TO LUNGE AT
DEPUTY MOLANDERS, MOLANDERS.HAD-ASKED BRITTIAN IF HE
HAD-ANY WEAPONS. AND BRITTIAN HAD VOLUNTEERED THAT
HE HAD A KNIFE. MOLANDERS TOLD BRITTIAN TO TAKE OUT
: THE KNIFE AND THROW IT AWAY;. WHICH BRITTIAN DID: WHEN
wo BRITTIAN PULLED THE KNIFE OUT OF HIS PANTS POCKET,

Extserr “0”
A. 2% 7

0150
2


Pu

So ‘Chim 8 Uhy- —
Die hep peseo Ting A ceim wal gletewdanil,
2. Cotusel BLES ee chentl 4 Sty or loyalty,

3 wality Us ADDI PBDEVICTE BY WURESL, A Dillg —
1 ts lwo cale We derewdave’ CAUSE, A ality
5 ty Lonsult with Be detindad [eh tiwet op.
6. Lryoataet decisions Matters, piuty Jo keep.
9, dekendans? wpnened ot, wayoodTAne weve lopment
3 Ww he touese of the paosecutin, add 1 dily .
9... 72 being Fe bene such SRM And Knowlelpe AS _
_p,will Lehider We taal 2 beliable aa veestielzl

Nh Testing UeDoless.
B.. GCE Zwei me
13 Inpuity into Leimival defbvse, LocsES
M oonecsi fous withthe detendaig may be cetpeal
15, Por frempee ASSESS MEME OF Moomssedh MuesPrgatior
kh. Decisions, Site Whew the lacks fbn tSygooel7
17, CTA pore ial. Jib OF VEAP RSE IRE gen,
Keown To Coumsel, Secause of bat De At asehwh
1. Febtibonek A3 said! ‘Couascb—pigjading”
_ b,. The CesT 70k ree yjudibe RESLAL Teh trom He
oy, Loctechucwess of léimiaal det igist Counsel Capeiha
2 He defeutool To Show Dhl Pere '3 A teessoonble
6B, pecba bil Bat but foe couBsels enyplctessr
m Joval Eabés, the result of the pacctedbicy

~ 26 would he heen AReeevt,.

tue OE 4)


|; See! E-prete L/i/son, TAY S.lu), oh IB.
2. Adebendudts cect 7o plend guilty

3. o@Mblo Coatewaee Veo Bono, LE LASEGOO—
d, Ertorvious Advice oF counsel ison bolrutaeity
5, aa Rasouriiigly , On Lev ices) of the eecotg,

be We cout (outed Thad Hes tate poset bok

> po temeddtial ACID alton gh JL padAchial.

5, Kvowlelye Marl fed Ponte Pad LECELLES -

6. Aomstitaliomrlly meTiechile AS5/ State ©

a?
in
df

DD, Cosel As tt A euideweé feom the Cones

tu? SD

Jb Bétusior Ayia ‘Li Lora,
_ 2 Lob bnweny Assets BU ‘ronten What on
Li, Phe comnnl fusvite ss sZen? PRS 3D 70s
‘9, Hall untbiowed Weal We Stiles SULSEQUED
1s, gnpre/sowrmént of Whe defendant 18 7 Llane

Loy St.

j a Pease Ae taf Vite owas
Ji, OFF Gilt yHOLL ESS, bb,3, Const, frail AAV SEATE

1. nchiowd 1s presen’, wel LECALUSE 2 STATE

it. offriial Rew 02 Shiite pavé AWOwn Be (fee

fa feuhIes of Phe LP OIAMESS hit bec ausl De

SD, Sy SHE [14S fbi led], Ske: Cavteell Ve A/a brain, .

Ch B06 Kod 652,683.

2 LeriAbnee Admits Dpat Pes Akoevey Tn

B Tames did do jhe witessaey (ues7 igh Vip (273
ne Tbe CSE TD EB OE LECE/ 2VEOS fUIVOCEDIEE.

oe BP

~ 28, However Couns failed Lo Lepeesént Tae

ue le) i (a


NACOGDOCHES COUNTY SHERIF§'S OFFICE

Warrantless Arrest Probable Cause Affidavit

Cause #:
Case #:

State of Texas
County of Nacogdoches

RIFF'S OFFICE under oath
w based upon the following:

The undersigned, / Sty ned. ret af the NACOGDOCHES COUNTY SHE

states that there existed probable cause for the arrest without warrant of the person named bela

~ Name of arrestee: KEVIN L. BRITTAIN : DOB? O7/01475
Date of arrest: 09/09/12 Time: 19:09:01
~ Place of arrest: 2009 CR 411
The above-named person is currently being detained on the following charges:
Offense Date/Time Statute Code cc Bail Amt
.AGG ASSAULT AGAINST PUBLIC SER 09/09/12 19:12:03 22.02 (by(2(B) Fl
YF 2.CRIMINAL TRESPASS HABIT/SUPERF 09/09/12 19:13:33 30.05 (yin) MA
3.RESIST ARREST SEARCH OR TRANSP 09/09/12 19:20:18 38.03(a) MA

arrantless arrest and the continued detention of the

‘The undersigned believes that probable cause existed for this wa
wn by the undersigned personally or was

above-named person based upon the following information which was cither kno
obtained by the undersigned in his/her capacity as a peace officer:
x 412 in

on 09/09/12 at, approx 1815 hours

reference to a disturbance in progress. Upon arrival deputy molanders 4
female subject yelling at each other on porch Deputy molanders ordered
step away from the porch and speak with deputy molanders the defendant}

in his pocket. uty molanders drew
hands out of his pockets, when the defe
ordered the defenant to drop the knife. The defendant opened the knit
deputy molanders. The defendant then threw the knife into the flower bet
wesidence. Deputy molanders took the defendant to the ground in attempt
medonald arrived and observed the defendant resisting and pulling away|
on the ground. deputy mcdonald drive stunned the defendant with his du
have the defendant comply. deputy molanders was hi
during the incident. deputy mcdonald spoke with th!
the defendant entered her residence to get his thing:
yelling andJ vandalized the inside of the residence.

‘The undersigned requests the magistratc to whom this statement is pre:
cause existed for the above-described warrantless arrest, authorizing the continued detention of t

the stated charges, and setting appropriate bail, ifany.
Leelee
Pa

's but refused to 1

sented to execute an orde

deputies were dispatched to the 2000 bik

his duty weapon and ordered the def
ndant pulled a knife from his poc!

ey c
s3Mobserved male and

ed the defendant to

refused and reached
‘endant to keep his
ket. deputy molanders
and lunged towards

in front of the

to arrest him. deputy
from deputy molanders
y taser in attempt to

spitalized due to injuries he suffered
victim of the disturbance who stated that

ave. The defenant was

determining that probable
he above-named person on

ronal!

Dept WM! don cl $62) LJte Nor Officer

Lutn on the Cem Lindahl aH the Cine he
A hover he WETNESSED de fonche 7 lunge i
of belated bas oe elian st

SFT
Exurecr D
(G14

0144.

tl



din duppoct that Lain.
Z. odin Fennengs oF Faex (2.) fudge Ouch, Lelye Oy.

fain the mph Y incline alia aitomg

if file Li dselad Bin He tm NOTA had
filed rd tn haf lash Yhanel thin bad ba
Lidyd afnat hin in td Udixt, UE ae eaucee mast
ltl ile tngfiled do lnblacbil aCe illustut



Lnumares UNsSioen
DServe

a KEVIN lée ERITTALA/, TDC “0/9|5233, berm Proce ad
imenceesibel the Toi dupadlisnt 5 lriiinel ustlre,
Lanne Gist Unit, 3295 FM BSH, Begumort TX 7705,
dle tetonnly dooce. undo perolt; peceery thet the
forgery Applicat Kepner Bofodgen Dice. Dengong dict

Signed ha hod Usthe day df Mllacke
ON Ra Lae HCO

Kern LeeBreriacn, & ere

THES * 01415233

2ée: CAuseNo, FIZI9562-A


|
Sy out a Rh pebbs oT \is late oom ~ lowe

WAS Open. om Otamwe Ww te STEP cas he Coarmse bo
Vapor vee oF. ofan SAMA Smee an ot OUR, Ba

Kuo. On, san Shoot wot Gk te Wrows Wo

ca ane Dae Lense, FRE ee Kholsrtube wewpan -
Gat Wie de Urornen BP ae ae We ses sre om ORL
aoe Kp bo We Rove OTB wa Uns ho
\rospacd® Wud ama barn Curis
Fe Wary Hae oFRxaL, 2% ofly. hriceas|
\F OR Ca Mnasein Carne. -

or ACSISTOD

EXRLBIT A 0043
frac yz


To War:

L nt with FENPENGS oF Fher (lI. 2 ay

wing Lepphcclin Uf duit Halen. in pteay

faemseftic Bar choles Otte, bee
aes an ele fe,

fend “tee (eee
fee Musee i

Lng ise hem ors Leake Whe itd the Neca
bec tows ste Le a
foe Gofidee Bt OD Gedy got



NS

5,to peigger The fall geotetl ion of he tov

pod Foutk ent Amendments) Zt cann, a 7
Z lanfee),

A,
es.
3. Sektoutsly BE SUGG este! Palatine ALEVE
4 began te oecdlée Pet tower, 79 reascioa ble Qeesea
5, pb pis sjtvAbion Wold PAvE tought DE ws
6. standing jv Pls Lonl spp aS ATI ULE

2, of heitt, Jisteviag 1s 5Pitae (Molaudees

5 MWUESTAATIVE conver sritiire, and feee te

a Change lus ret Awd 4° Donne 2s ts The

Ie. pou fa. Oy Aine 1, See, Hayes, Super, AC

W 815-Bl, 105. 3,CF, [bo Y3:

RIA ifoe Assure (20) ‘hwughul diseot Taditial faces
kk LUISE,

Df thee 13 4 false Kestese Claian, damages Spe

13, tnt chain Cover Whe Pitt of et ewlirr up wil

I TESuMME OF 2LOLESS DK aceniga ment, butt

1. nace, Feorn Mal point bn, pry Marritges

13, fetovecnble nust he base ba yp Wraliticus

1, peosecubicas claro aud vwihe arewogti use
3. ppudielal POLE SS tHe than Ae envio.

a sel See: KeeElom, Super, ii9, At 588, 8 SOEISES,

B SYORP, § 98.15 At 9, SEE? Albers ht UY ObvEe, 5/2.
BUS Mel 215, MY SLE. OT. 7 a
a Bbtonee Asset and Cowtinithe Wat pis Abs
1 Ten Janes! Acs ie tach Me hee dusisthre

2. oA Loandse/. Pine AG 4)


ALYSSA ERIN LOUDENLAGER, WF, 1/18/99, DAUGHTER OF
BRYAN AND JANICE LOUDERLAGER we

ADYSSON LOUDENLAGER, WF, 6/22/07, DAUGHTER OF JANICE
AND DRYAN LOUDENLAGER

KOLTEN BRITTIAN, WM, 2/1/10, SON OF KEVIN BRITTIAN AND
HOLLY SCOGGINS

HOLLY SCOGGINS, WF, EX-GIRLFRIEND OF KEVIN LEE BRITTIAN
AND MOTHER OF KOLTEN BRITTIAN, PRIMARY CQUSTODIAN OF
KOLTEN BRITTIAN HOLLY SCOGGINS CONTACTED PARTIN BY
TELEPHONE AND WANTED TO TELL PARTIN OF THE PLANS SHE
AND BRYAN LOUDENLAGER DISCUSSED TO USE KEVIN
BRITTIAN AS A REASON TO GET CUSTODY OF ALYSSA
LOUDENLAGER AND ADDYSON LOUDENLAGER FROM JANICE
LOUDENLAGER. SHE SAID THAT BRYAN LOUDENLAGER

+ WANTED THE PORTRAY KEVIN BRITTIAN AS A BAD PERSON
THAT IS HAVING A BAD EFFECT ON THE TWO YOUNG GIRLS.
SHE ALLOWED THAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY TO THOSE
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN HERELF AND BRYAN LOUDENLAGER.
SHE TOLD PARTIN THAT KEVIN HAD BEEN CLEAN AND SOBER
SINCE THE BIRTH OF HIS SON, KOLTON.

OTHER WITNESSES MAY BE DISCOVERED THAT WOULD AID IN
THE DEFENSE OF BRITTIAN.

DEPUTIES INVOLVED IN INCIDENT:

DEPUTY STEVEN MOLANDERS, NEW HIRE WITH ALMOST NO
EXPERIENCE ON THE STREET. FORMER OCCUPATION WAS THAT
OF A “RAPPER”, TRAVELING WITH AND DOING “HIP HOP”
SHOWS WITH BLACK ENTERTAINERS. STEVEN MOLANDERS IS
THE NEPHEW OF DEPUTY KENNETH KING ON NCSO.. -
MOLANDERS APPEARS TO PARTIN TO BE PRETTY IMMUTURE
AND TOO INEXPERIENCED TO WORK ALONE ON THE STREETS.
DURING THIS INCIDENT, MOLANDERS USED VERY POOR
TACTICS IN CONTROLING THE SCENE. HIS INJURY WAS MOST
LIKELY DUE TO HIS ATTEMPT-TO JUMP ON BRITTAIN AND TAKE
HIM DOWN TO THE GROUND. MOLANDERS WAS SAID BY AT

Exerer, C

fA. & of

0163


Cause Noz Fl2-Vsez-A

Ex are: 8 ve Tie Vesnezerl yer
[4S Suorerr Desterey
Keven LeBernan 8 enw haope

8

APPLICANTS Kesfonse To Ogee. Der YENG
Weer oF Hasets Coeeus weru
“ FENDENGS OF Fact"

On the, the 30% dy (Muck, zZoiss of, Keven Cee Ere EN)
TDes* 01916233, Ex rere, Pele thes KESPNSE Ts the ahove
humbessel tool dele sfidyre Dich stad Finda Oral ~,
Conchuctons If Laer tae led yoith pewtomell beg the Htnd
J the Hommabl fee bali ln

ol idler thee terme Chemrabogical firma tr Ha. Stabe
pity aoa
Jridence puovrelocl- : lomeed; ( tebe he Nepor

hurr MitinsLe Yom Ue. laserlte © jPnbdlcading

Dado. (4.I¢'s


his prior conviction would be placed in evidence before the jury. It would be naive to assume a
jury would not consider that he was a prior convict and that the person assaulted was a peace

officer with no prior criminal background. Kevin Britain's decision to plead guilty was based on

the fact that he understood 4a jury verdict would probably piace him in prison for a very

substantial amount of time and almost certainly would be far more than the offer that was
negotiated at the minimum limit.

7. All efforts, investigations, and strategies were done on Mr. Britain's behalf. He
received excellent representation and a thorough investigation and evaluation of his case. It was
his decision based on our mutual analysis of the case to accept the plea and to avoid exposure

to a jury, wi which \ would have surely se sentenced him to substantially more time in prison.
ne a

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority, on this the <fh
JOY JUELSON A, AQ
Notary Public, State of Texas
£ My Commission Expires Notarf Pu tate of Texas
Fes Moy 25, 2016

day of _FES2OARN , 2015.

Exteso “F

R23


; “Due Leocess of daw

L

1 Due couksé, AS used iw sess att Constitatonal————
2. Peouistow Ht wo 2rtizen oF : Lis S Tale spall
3, De depeivid ot Lite, libeely, PROpeErT yer excgat
1 dy De due Coulse of De Daw ot the land /3.

5 whetually TAB SAME AS Clee PROCESS,” AS used
.. (emE erdecad L: “wushtution L504 Lonst,.

9, Arend 14, Veenton's: Mri. TEXAS Lost, et. 4/9, .

3 Ta0xtant Appraisal hist batewny Cente foss0tiAles,

9, htd 345.0. 3A Tel.
pn. Be ACTIONS of ofits Mebane Violalee,
. the ConstfulionAl pad staTuToey eights
pf lhe Phi Dow, unilen The, Ph 5805 asl ie"
B Ponenolments. 7D De llvited States Lousht-
1. upon, Pabitle | sectpon9 et ihe Ferns lowstrt-
15, br, prod Urvdlex Aatithe 39.a3 oTAE
Jaa TEMS. Code oF Ceiminal Lenceiteire, Uso
| The achons ot We MensEciiloes Violated
Re pititanaes: Rights. to bug eocEss Lite)’,
by Sail Yo IW UEST GATE Lp Prwtes
2», Aialentee Lh ich, Wo VE PLOOEO. Als.

Bh LAND DLENE.. Lhich WAS jn Whe jADSSESSIOR oe

aot AIS Arneney$ Tin Jam esl. > Ao boll te

\, Bednetigatar Gary ts price tx Mtn —


CAUSE NO. F1219562-A

EX PARTE: § IN THE 145" JUDICIAL

§ DISTRICT COURT OF

KEVIN LEE BRITTAIN
§ NACOGDOCHES COUNTY

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

On this the 10" day of February, 2015 came on to be considered Relator’s application
for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on February 3, 2015. The Court has carefully considered the
Relator’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the attached exhibits, the sworn pleadings, the
Counsel’s personal recollection, and finds that the Application is unfounded in fact and/or law
and should be denied. Therefore, the relief sought in the Application is hereby DENIED. The

findings of fact and conclusions of are set forth below

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Applicant is a repeat offender who was placed on probation for Aggravated
Kidnapping back in 2000 and later revoked in 2004. He received a five year sentence for
his case when his probation was revoked. In Ground Two of his application, the
Applicant claims that |, the trial judge, recused myself in that matter. After reviewing the
papers in that prior case it is clear that | never recused myself.

2. In Ground One the Applicant complains that his trial attorney was ineffective by telling
him that he could not get a fair trial, and that he would receive a 99 year sentence ora


lrrnirwitng  Mirarentidelacts [adllinally, Myplint

hana hase (Cibit’E fy 2)» 5) Sth Gort licta:
tH» stile thed me the tugs wilssecen Otolio/
Heb they dtr th Apt Aang (eat tn
é with a Ande (yytee IS THECRUX
OF THE Lrnrerwer) (Gnphaces doblel.
Uypleiedt har previa frcomenttiog fossa that He tree
ode eae hy theta ey Ypihe sosan
appl be “ystrasron oe Cd ‘

L | doy Dts Enieussorss 0 Lied U), the clube

esr pred, Hotter bat re lact chia temple
[4.2 5/3 |



STATE OF TEXAS }

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY } J:
|
-... _WOLUNTARY STATEMENT . | > 3
case Sl ho Foe. 3 =
DATE:. A~G-12
TIME: i

PLACE! Doet<«C4}

: ; i ~
MY. NAME is Beans lovack MY DATE OF BIRTH IS Baw fies
TLIVEAT_YYO ce Yow Awe TK fY HOME PHONE NUMBER JS

936 S64 G1T9-_. MY NEAREST RELATIVE IS wba ion Ws AGS?
AND THEIR PHONE NUMBER IS_TS6& Sow C07 - LAM GIVING THIS

STATEMENT TO__J_. Sparkes WHO HAS BEEN PROPERLY
IDENTIFIED AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE NACOGDOCHES COUNTY.

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
Zwar calle bey wey, Kugnied. Alacer (erenlrewe twlea (ozs eu,

reall
3G CR alec, Lomein a wads Guay | Vani Beings , who
Abe san go Alycca sree wo @ Joot Ce Gi] tecwlee. Gd oes well 4

Qua CURE TAs Ramen lou cudiasn Gil ow vam Bin OM WAT URS

store, Hua @ WON CRU, TS iwes quer calles or Mipkee fells we fo:

© Nnweeye TD TAs awe wan Alda de field wire vn wo ony Mea,
(onvesime luster Apert” 4S waies (mnseyhe) the also Agtisanit> Cala
trad Kalle Huw ofr ous to late Ue AS STEN ar eu

ae atnolnem onans ar Whe polles a tech wha pier Ser lace Pep
|

{GOING STATEMENT WHICH CONSIST OF ___ PAGE(S)

Se / Me ORRECT. | GAVE THIS STATEMENT OF MY O\WN FREE
; y SAME IN COURT.

0042