IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

EX PARTE §

§

§ NO. WR-56,666-03

§

DENNIS LEE ALLEN §

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

EX PARTE §

§

§ NO. WR-82,467-01

§

STANLEY ORSON MOZEE §

MOTION TO REMAND CASES TO TRIAL COURT

TO THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

NOW COMES Applicants, DENNIS LEE ALLEN and STANLEY ORSON MOZEE,

and submits this Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court and would show the Court the

following:

I.

Applicants were charged as co-actors in this capital murder case and were

convicted in separate trials. Applicants previously filed Applications for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. One ground of the Applications was that the state violated Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83 (1963) by failing to disclose agreements with jailhouse informants to assist them

with their own criminal cases. The informants testified that they had no agreements. The

state agreed with Applicants that relief should be granted based on letters written to the

prosecutor confirming that there had been discussions concerning help from the state to

Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court - Page 1

WR-56,666-03

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 11/4/2015 5:02:57 PM

Accepted 11/5/2015 8:03:15 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
the informants on their own criminal cases and that the informants had expectations that

the state would assist them with their own cases. Based on the trial record, the state

agreed with Applicants that these letters were not revealed to defense counsel and that the

informants’ testimony was false in denying any agreements or expectations of leniency. 

The trial court agreed and entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommending

that relief be granted.

On February 4, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued a remand order to,

“provide the trial prosecutor with the opportunity to respond to Applicants’ Brady claim.” 

On October 26-27, 2015, the trial court held a hearing where the trial prosecutor provided

six hours of testimony on this issue. In the course of this testimony, several new matters

were revealed that required Applicants to amend their writ applications. On November 4,

2015, both Applicants filed Amended Applications which are attached to this motion.

In his testimony, the trial prosecutor claimed that a notation in his notes concerning

showing of physical evidence to defense counsel meant that he showed the exculpatory

evidence at issue to defense counsel. The trial prosecutor stated that he had no

independent recollection of showing the exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, but

relied strictly on this notation in his notes for his contention that he had done so. Although

Applicants strongly dispute any suggestion that the prosecutor’s notes that he showed

“physical evidence” to defense counsel means he showed them letters from jailhouse

informants, the testimony does raise a new factual issue. Therefore, as a result of the

prosecutor’s testimony, Applicants have raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims

under the theory that if the prosecutor showed this exculpatory evidence to defense

counsel, then they were ineffective in not using it at trial.

Additionally, in the course of preparing for this hearing, and in the hearing itself,

Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court - Page 2
additional information was developed concerning suppressed exculpatory evidence. This

evidence includes matters testified to by the trial prosecutor. This additional information

is referenced in the amended writs and requires further fact finding by the trial court.

II.

The hearing held in this case on October 26-27, 2015, does not resolve all of the

factual questions in this case. In fact, the hearing created additional factual questions and

caused Applicants to raise additional grounds for relief. For these reasons, Applicants ask

that this case be remanded back to the trial court for the court to gather facts and address

the issues raised in the amended writ applications.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Applicants request that the Court grant this motion and

remand these cases to the trial court for further fact development and findings. Applicants

also request that the previous remand order be abated and superceded by a new general

order.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Gary A. Udashen 

GARY A. UDASHEN

Bar Card No. 20369590

SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON

2311 Cedar Springs Road

Suite 250

Dallas, Texas 75201

214-468-8100

214-468-8104 fax

Appearing on Behalf of the

Innocence Project of Texas

Counsel for Dennis Lee Allen

Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court - Page 3
 /s/ Nina Morrison 

Nina Morrison

INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC.

40 Worth Street, Suite 701

New York, New York 10013

212-364-5340

212-264-5341 fax

 /s/ Ezekiel Tyson 

EZEKIEL TYSON, JR.

Bar Card No. 24034715

THE TYSON LAW FIRM

342 W. Montana Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75224

214-942-9000

214-942-9001 fax

Counsel for Stanley Orson Mozee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court was electronically delivered to Cynthia Garza and

Patricia Cummings, Assistant Dallas County District Attorneys, on this the 4th day of

November, 2015.

/s/ Gary A. Udashen 

GARY A. UDASHEN

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned counsel certifies that he has conferred with the Dallas County

District Attorney’s Office and they have no opposition to the granting of this motion.

/s/ Gary A. Udashen 

GARY A. UDASHEN

Motion to Remand Cases to Trial Court - Page 4
Case No. W00-01305-FR(B) 

(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.) 

I 0 "" \1 

' -4 AN 8: 45 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE~~; . {b11_'k~ 

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS €-OR.l~JTS 1 i:.XAs 

SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION -·--DEPUTY 

UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 

NAME: Dennis Lee Allen 

PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: -=0-=n-=B-=o-=nd=------------------

TDCJ-CID NUMBER: 01001859 SID NUMBER: ___ 05465683 ,_;,__ ____ _ 

(1) This application concerns (check all that apply): 

x a conviction D parole 

x a sentence D mandatory supervision 

D time credit D 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.) 

265th Judicial District Court/Dallas County 

(3) What was the case number in the trial court? 

F00-01305-FR 

(4) What was the name of the trial judge? 

KeithDean 

Effective: January 1. 2014 1 
(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name: 

Yes, Jim Oatman 

(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered? 

September 1, 2000 

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence? 

Capital Murder/Life 

(8) If yon 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? 

(9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.) 

D guilty-open plea 

X not guilty 

D guilty-plea bargain 

D nolo contendere/no contest 

If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain: 

(Hl) What kind of trial did you have? 

D no jury X jury for guilt and punishment 

D jury for guilt, judge for punishment 

2 
(11) Did you testify at tirial? Uyes, at what phase of the tirial did you testify? 

Yes, Guilt-Innocence 

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? 

X yes D no 

Uyou did appeal, answer the following questions: 

(A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? 8th District/El Paso 

(B) What was the case uumbeir? 08-00-00442-CR ~------------~-----~~~ 

(C) Were you irepiresented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's 

name: 

Yes 

(D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affirmed- 07/11/2002 

(13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals? 

X yes D no 

If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions: 

(A) What was the case number? 1390-02 

(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Refused- 01/29/2003 

(14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction? 

X yes D no 

If you answered yes, answer the following questions: 

(A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? ~5~6~6~6=6--0=2~----

3 
(B) What was the decision and the date ofthe decision? Denied - 11112/2013 

(C) Please identify the reason that the rnrrent claims were not presented and could 

not have been presented on yonr previons application. 

The current claims are based on newly available and newly discovered evidence 

that could not have been presented at the time of the filing of the first application. 

The factual and legal basis of these claims w~s not available. Moreover, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the U. S. Constitution, no 

rational juror could have found the Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Art. 11.07, Sec. 4. 

(15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal 

court? 

Dyes 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 yon 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) 

Dyes D no 

If you answered yes, answer the following questions: 

(A) What date did you present the claim? 

(B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision? 

U yon answered no, please explain why yon have not submitted your claim: 

4 
(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. I/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 pages 14 and 15 ofthe 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. The recitation of the facts supporting each 

ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form. 

You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal 

authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a 

memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument 

must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73 

and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. 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 
GROUND ONE: 

Applicant is entitled to relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence, No 

rational jury would have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt had the new DNA and 

other evidence been available, 

FACTS surrORTING GROUND ONE: 

Newly discovered and newly available evidence demonstrates Applicant's innocence, This 

evidence is three separate DNA tests definitely excluding both Applicants (Allen and codefendant Mozee) as the source of probative evidence from the crime scene, An unknown 

person was the source of 1) DNA mixed with the victim's in a distinct drop of blood swabbed 

from the front of the store, 2) DNA on the handle of a hammer found next to the victim's corpse, 

which contained the victim's own blood on the ball end, 3) A hair underneath the victim's 

fingernails, Additional newly available evidence of innocence, includes correspondence from 

two j ailhouse informants, Lonel Hardeman and Zane Smith, which contradicted their trial 

testimony revealing that they had sought and believed they had been promised deals for their 

testimony, There is also evidence that these informants fabricated their claims against Allen and 

Mozee, Other new evidence is that Det Berry swore out an affidavit in which he made false 

representations regarding the eyewitnesses he had interviewed, Additional newly discovered 

evidence is that one of the three store clerks who Det Berry claimed had identified Allen had 

6 
actually told another officer she did not get a good look at the suspect and could not identify 

anyone. Moreover, there is newly discovered evidence that none of the tlu·ee store clerks who 

allegedly identified Allen as passing the deceased's credit cards actually stands by their 

identification and each of them have withdrawn or recanted their identification or expressed 

doubts about it. More newly discovered evidence consists of statements from neutral 

eyewitnesses describing a pair of suspects seen before and after the murder who did not fit 

the physical features of Mozee and Allen. Also, there is new evidence of at least one additional 

undisclosed eyewitness interviewed by Det. Berry who gave a detailed description of two men he 

saw arguing with the victim shortly before his death. Other new evidence is the fact that 

nowhere in the state's files is there any reference to photo arrays containing either defendant 

being shown to two eyewitnesses - Scott James and Insun Chon - which indicates that photo 

arrays were shown to these witnesses but they did not pick out Mozee or Allen. There is also 

newly discovered evidence that Zane Smith had a motive to claim that Stan Mozee confessed 

to involvement in this murder: that Mozee allegedly stole Smith's commissary in jail. This 

newly discovered evidence establishes that Applicant is actually innocent in that 

no rational juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discovered evidence. 

Additionally, actual innocence is also established under the Schlup standard as a gateway 

to the other constitutional violations alleged in this Application. 

7 
GROUND TWO: 

Applicant is entitled to relief because, by a preponderance, he would not have been convicted 

had the new DNA evidence been available at trial. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO: 

Under Art. 11.073, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., the new DNA evidence in this case provides a ground 

for relief. This new DNA evidence was not available to be offered by Applicant at his trial since 

it was not in existence. This new DNA evidence identifies DNA from persons other than Allen 

or Mozee, in locations where DNA from the persons who committed this murder would be 

found. Had this new scientific DNA evidence been available and been presented at trial, on the 

preponderance of the evidence, Applicant would not have been convicted. 

8 
9 
GROUND THREE: 

The state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Applicant's due process rights. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE: 

The state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of due process as follows: 

1) Pretrial correspondence from informants Hardeman and Smith found in the file of the 

Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted this case contains the following exculpatory evidence 

which was not disclosed to the defense and which contradicts trial testimony presented by the 

state. 

a. Correspondence from Lone! Hardeman to the prosecutor regarding his belief that he a 

deal for his testimony with the prosecutor. This directly contradicts Hardeman's testimony, 

directly elicited by the prosecutor, that he had no deal, understanding, arrangement or 

expectation of leniency, did not want a deal and never even discussed a deal. 

b. Correspondence from Zane Smith to the prosecutor regarding his discussions with the 

prosecutor regarding assistance from the prosecutor with Smith's own legal issues. This also 

contradicted direct testimony from Smith, elicited by the prosecutor, that there was no deal, 

understanding, arrangement or expectation of leniency. This exculpatory correspondence and 

the discussions between the informants and the prosecutor or other state agents was never 

revealed to the defense. 

10 
Because the state lacked any forensic or credible eyewitness testimony inculpating either 

defendant in the crimes, and was forced to rely so heavily on informant testimony to prove its 

case, the violations here were unquestionably material to the outcome. Moreover, the state's 

violations were compounded by the fact that its former lead prosecutor (1) was under direct 

pretrial orders from the trial court to make timely disclosure of precisely such Brady material, 

and (2) repeatedly and deliberately elicited testimony from both informants at trial disclaiming 

any expectation of personal benefit to themselves, even though he knew - as reflected by the 

letters in his owu file - that this testimony was false. 

2. The state also failed to reveal deals, agreements or understandings with the following 

witnesses that the state either would or already had assisted them with their owu criminal 

problems: (a) John Paul Robinson, (b) Cynthia Sloan, (c) Kenneth Jones, (d) Charles Manning, 

(e) Alvin Degrafton-Reid, (f) Zane Smith. In fact on Manning and Degrafton-Reid, the police 

detective helped them with their probation violations. 

3. The state also failed to reveal that the prosecutor interviewed the following two witnesses 

who allegedly identified Allen as passing the deceased's credit cards and they expressed doubt 

about their identification: witnesses K woon and Jang. 

11 
GROUND FOUR: 

State's witnesses testified falsely at trial and the prosecutor failed to correct their testimony or 

inform the court of its falsity. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR: 

State's witness Lone! Hardeman claimed at trial that he had no deal, understanding or agreement 

with the state, that he would receive help with his own criminal cases after his testimony. He 

also claimed that he had no discussion about help with his cases, had no hope of leniency from 

the state, and did not want any help and would not accept it if offered. All of these statements 

were false and the prosecutor knew they were false. Yet, the prosecutor did nothing to correct 

this false testimony or inform the court of its falsity. This is a violation of the prosecutor's duty 

to correct false testimony and is a violation of Applicant's right to due process. 

State's witness Zane Smith also falsely implied to the jmy that he had received no help from 

the state on his case and expected none. Likewise, state's witnesses Robinson, Sloan, Manning 

and Degrafton-Reid all testified that they had no understanding with the state for assistance 

on their cases, and the state had not and would not assist them. This was also false testimony the 

state failed to correct violating Applicant's due process rights. 

12 
13 
GROUND FIVE: 

The State secured Applicant's conviction through the presentation of false testimony from its 

lead detective in violation of Applicant's due process rights. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FIVE: 

The state secured these convictions through the knowingly false sworn statements of Det. Berry. 

Berry had submitted an affidavit prior to trial in support of applicant's arrest where he stated that 

he had located three employees at businesses where suspects had attempted to use the victim's 

stolen credit cards within hours of the murder. Berry further attested that the tluee employees 

had identified Allen from the photo array. Berry also testified to this. Newly discovered police 

reports and notes from the District Attorney's trial file show that these statements were false. 

Moreover, Det. Berry had located and interviewed five, not three employees from these 

businesses. In fact, not all of them selected Allen's photograph; one clerk did not, identifying a 

different suspect.Also, as to the most relevant witness, Insun Chon, who dealt directly with the 

suspect and refused to complete the transaction, Det. Berry's reports make no mention of any 

array or lineup ever being shown him. This is likely because the identification procedure 

engaged in with this witness did not result in any inculpatory evidence. 

Det. Berry's credibility was critical to the state's case: he was the only witness to the allegedly 

14 
voluntary "confession" of guilt made by Mr. Mozee in custody, and he interviewed virtually all 

of the state's key informants and eyewitnesses. The new evidence that he knowingly 

misrepresented the nature of the eyewitness evidence to the court and jury in sworn statements 

undermines confidence in the trial's outcome and requires due process relief. 

15 
GROUND SIX: 

The state failed to disclose favorable eyewitness evidence in violation of Applicant's due process 

rights. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SIX: 

The state's trial prosecutor also failed to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding 

eyewitnesses, in violation of due process and the district court's express pretrial orders. 

In particular, the state failed to disclose the fact that Ms. Kyonng Jang, one of the three store 

clerks who purportedly identified Allen to Det. Berry, had earlier stated to another detective 

that she "could not recognized [sic] anyone in relation to the attempt [sic] use of the 

complainant's credit card, as she had not gotten a close look at the individual trying to use it." 

This report was addressed to Det. Berry, was dated more than a year before trial, and was part of 

the prosecution's trial file, but was never disclosed to either defense connsel. In addition, the 

District Attorney's trial file contains a report regarding another key eyewitnesses who also did 

not identify Allen or Mozee: Insnn Chon, a store manager who refused to complete the 

transaction with the man who tried to use the victim's stolen card Yet, there are no reports 

reflecting that eyewitness identification procedures (arrays/lineups) were shown to this witness -

despite the fact that Det. Berry showed the defendants'photographs to every other witness 

16 
who viewed the suspects, including those with far more limited opportunities to view the 

suspects than Mr. Chon This strongly indicates that this witness, consistent with the rest of the 

investigation, was in fact show the defendants' photographs and did not identify them, but the 

state failed to memorialize or disclose that fact to the defense. In fact, a recently disclosed 

notation in the district attorney's file indicates that Mr. Chon did not identify either defendant 

prior to trial and the prosecutor was aware of that fact. 

17 
GROUND SEVEN: 

The testimony from the informants was false and presented in violation of due process. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SEVEN: 

State's witness Hardeman now admits that the testimony he presented at trial was false and that 

Allen did not say the things he claimed at trial he said. Moreover, it is clear from the 

records that he falsely testified concerning whether he expected to receive any benefits from 

the state. Even ifthe prosecutor did not know of the falsity of the substance of this testimony, 

· the presentation of this false testimony is a violation of due process. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously held that due process requires relief whether new 

evidence reveals that a key witness's trial testimony against a defendant was false, whether or 

not trial prosecutors knew or should have known of its falsity. Thus, the informant's recantation, 

if credited, would provide further grounds for granting the writ (in addition to the considerable 

documentary evidence establishing due process violations regarding these informants as set 

forth separately in other grounds, supra). 

18 
19 
GROUND EIGHT: 

Applicant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND EIGHT: 

In an evidentiary hearing on this writ application, the state's prosecutor at trial, Rick Jackson, 

claimed that an entry in his notes stating that he showed physical evidence to defense counsel 

Jim Oatman, means that he showed defense counsel the letters from Hardeman and Smith 

concerning their discussions with the state about help the state would give them on their cases. 

Prosecutor Jackson does not claim to remember actually giving or showing defense counsel 

these letters. Rather, he relies on this notation of showing defense counsel the physical 

evidence as his basis for his claim that he showed the letters to defense counsel. Nevertheless, 

the evidence clearly shows that the prosecutor did not show these letters to defense counsel. 

However, ifthe court finds the prosecutor's testimony in this regard convincing, then there is 

clear and obvious ineffective assistance of counsel by defense counsel in failing to use these 

letters at trial to impeach the testimony of Hardeman and Smith claiming they had no deal, 

agreement, arrangement or understanding that the state would assist them in their own cases. 

This ineffective assistance would be inadequate performance by counsel and would have 

20 
affected the outcome of these cases since Hardeman and Smith were important state 

witnesses. 

21 
WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT 

RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

VERIFICATION 

This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For 

verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf. A 

petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for example, an applicant's 

attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody. 

The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a 

notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented 

by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" as petitioner and 

then complete "Petitioner's Information." A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a 

Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which 

case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner. 

A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" 

before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information." An inmate petitioner 

must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or the "Inmate's 

Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate "Petitioner's 

Information." 

OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC 

STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTYOF /).r:/(o/ 

Ga Udashen , being duly sworn, under oath says: "I am the 

applicant petitioner · cle one) in this action and know the contents of the above application 

for a writ o a eas corpus and, according to my belief, the facts stated in the application are 

true.'J 

22 

Signature "'![Notary Public 

' .,,, ii 

u 
PETITIONER'§ INFORMATION 

Petitioner's printed name: Garv A. Udashen 

State bar number, if applicable: =2=03=6=9~5~9~0 ________ _ 

Address: 2311 Cedar Springs Road 

Suite 250 

Dallas Texas 75201 

Telephone: 214-468-8100 

Fax: 214-468-8104 

INMATE'S DECLARATION 

I, ______________ , am the applicant I petitioner (circle one) and 

being presently incarcerated in declare under penalty of 

perjury that, according to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct. 

Signed on _________ , 20 __ . 

Signature of Applicant I Petitioner (circle one) 

23 
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION 

Petitioner's printed name: Gary A. Udashen 

Address: 2311 Cedar Springs Road 

Suite 250 

Dallas Texas 75201 

Telephone: 214-468-8100 

Fax: 214-468-8104 

Signed on ,~' / '20 /_),~ 

Signature of Petitioner 

24 

Case No. _____ _ 

(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.) 

IN THE 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 

NAME: __ s_t_a_nl_e~y_O_r_s_o_n_M_o_z_e_e ___________________ _ 

DATEOFBIRTH: -~0~4~/2~1~/1~9~5~9---------------~ 

On bond pursuant to Art. 11.65 

PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: -------------------

TDCJ-CID NUMBER: _,,9""39,,,,0""2"'4 ____ _ SID NUMBER: -'2"'3'"'"7-"5-"5"'32=-------

(1) This application concerns (check all that apply): 

~ a conviction 0 

if a sentence 0 

0 time credit 0 

parole 

U);:.:2 

mandatory supervision i ?~;-, I __,,.- :· 0 fT1fl"1-... 

out-of-time appeal or petitiqp lg!r~i~. "' 

discretionary revic\v ~ c.n -< 

(2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from? 

(Include the court number and county.) 

265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas 

(3) What was the case number in the trial court'? 

F99-02631-R 

(4) What was the name of the trial judge? 

Judge Keith Dean 

Effective: January I, 20 I 4 

c 
(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide !he attorney's name: 

Matt Fry 

(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered? 

August 2, 2000 

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence? 

Capital murder with a deadly weapon; Life imprisonment 

(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? 

NIA 

(9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.) 

0 guilty-open plea 

..;'not guilty 

D guilty-plea bargain 

D nolo contenderelno contest 

If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain: 

(10) What kind of trial did you have? 

0 nojury 0 jury for guilt and punishment ..rl jury for guilt, judge for punishment 

2 
(11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase ofthe trial did you testify? 

Yes, both during trial and during a pre-trial hearing to suppress the confession. 

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? 

-..£yes 0 no 

If you did appeal, answer the following questions: 

(A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? 5th District, Dallas, Texas 

(B) What was the case number? 05-00-01260-CR 

(C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's 

name: 

Dean M. Swanda 

{D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affirmed 12/14/2001 

(13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals? 

0 yes 

If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions: 

(A) What was the case number? 

(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? 

(14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction? 

0 yes ..JI no 

If you answered yes, answer the following questions: 

(A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? 

3 
(II) What was tile decision and the date of tile decision? 

(C) Please identify tile reason that the current claims were not presented and conld 

not have been presented on your previous application. 

(15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal 

court? 

D yes 4J' 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) 

Dyes D no 

If you answered yes, answer the following questions: 

(A) What date did you present the claim? 

(B) 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: 

4 
(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 pages 14 and 15 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. The recitation of the facts supporting each 

ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form. 

You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal 

authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a 

memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument 

must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73 

and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. 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 
GROUND ONE: 

Newly Discovered Evidence Establishes that Mr. Mozee is Actually Innocent. No Rational Jury Would Have 

Found Proof of Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Had the Newly Discovered Evidence Been Available. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: 

A combination of previously-unavailable DNA evidence and exculpatory documentary evidence that was 

suppressed by the State's trial prosecutors demonstrates the innocence of Mr. Mozee and his codefendant Dennis Allen; at the very least, no rational jury would have convicted either man of capital 

murder had this evidence been available. The new evidence includes, inter alia: (I) newly obtained DNA 

testing revealing lhat person(s) other than the defendant deposited DNA mixed with the victim's on a 

bloodstain at the scene of the crime, in a hair fragment under the victim's fingernails, and on a hammer 

found next to the victim's corpse; (2) contemporaneous correspondence from the State's two primary 

jaHhoqse jnfonnants. revealing that both n1en had repeatedly sought. and belieyed they bad been 

promised, leniency in their own cases in direct exchange for their testimony for the State, in direct 

contravention of their trial testimony and the State's own representations to the jury; (3) exculpatory 

eyewitness evidence suppressed by Lhe Stale at trial; and ( 4) evidence that the lead detective in the case --

whose credibility was critical to the State's presentation -- had submitted a false pretrial affidavit to the 

co11rt mjsrepresentjng the nature of the eyewjtness eyjdence gathered to date Gjven the lack of forensic 

6 
evidence or credible lay witness testimony connecting either defendant to the crime, had the new evidence 

been available jt would have 11nq11e5tionably changed the ontcome qf the I-rial and respited jn both 

Applicants' acquittals. 

7 
GROUND TWO: 

Applicanls are Enlilled lo Relief Because, By a Preponderance of Lhe Evidence, They Would Not Have 

Been Convicted Had the New DNA Evidence Been Available at Trial. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO: 

The new DNA evidence set forth with respect to Claim One, supra, also entitles Applicants to relief under 

the newly enacted provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. l l.073, in that it establishes, by a preponderance 

of the evidence that Mr Mozee and his co-defendant wo1J)d not have been conyjcted had the jucy heard 

that evidence. The State's trial case rested on the uncorroborated "confession" of Mr. Mozee (which was 

written out for him by the Jone detective to whom he had allegedly made these unrecorded admissions) 

which he has disavowed for more than fifteen years, as well as the implausible and self-interested testimony 

of a jailhouse informant. For this reason, new DNA evidence pointing to an unknown individual as the 

source of key DNA deposits jn 1n1Jltiple locations at the scene of this yjolent rohbery-1n11rder wo11ld have 

readily tipped the scales to acquittal, satisfying the preponderance standard for relief. 

8 
9 
GROUND THREE: 

The State Failed to Disclose Favorable Evidence Regarding At Least Two Jailhouse Informant Witnesses, and 

Elicited Testimony from the Informants that the Trial Prosecutor Knew Was False, in Violation of Applicant's 

Due Process Rights. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE: 

The State's tral pro5ec11tor5 vjolated Mr Mozee's right to dpe process of law by failing to 

disclose the substance of their explicit communications with at least two jail house 

informants -- one of whom testified at both trials, and one of whom testified only at Mr. 

Allen's trial. These communications pertained to the benefits that both informants expressly sought and 

believed they had been promised in direct exchange for their testimony against the defendants, including 

undisclosed letters sent to the former lead prosecutor in which the informants sought certain benefits 

in exchange for testifying and/or sought to have the prosecution fulfill promises of assistance that 

jnformant5 believed had been expressly n1ade to tbeo1 Te5tjn1qny by jofgrn33nt Zane Sn1jth at Mr. 

Mozee's trial, and by the former prosecutor in this proceeding, that Smith had "no deal," 

whether express or implied, is contradicted not only by the above correspondence, but also by the fact that 

after both trials were over, the prosecutor went to extraordinary lengths to obtain the promised benefit for 

seek (and the district court's jurisdiction to grant) such relief had expired; this resulted in 

10 
the entry of what was effectively an illegal judgment and sentence reduction on Smith's behalf. 

In addition, the State failed to disclose to either defendant the fact that the lead homicide detective in this 

case assisted two other informants, Charles Manning and Alvin Degraftenreed, with pending probation 

violations before they testified. This fact is reflected in pretrial notes prepared by the lead trial prosecutor, 

Rick !ackson. and other information provided by the State during this proceeding pursuant to its ongoing 

Brady obligations; it directly contradicts the prosecutor's sworn testimony in this proceeding that he 

never assisted, or directed anyone to assist, a State informant with any pending crin1inal nlalter berorc the 

informant testified. 

This evidence is relevant to assessing the prosecutor's credibility on all of the due process issues presented in 

this writ. including whether he played any role in assisting informant Zane Smith with his own 

pending criminal charges, which were resolved by a highly favorable plea less than 

three weeks before he testified against Mr. Mozee. 

Finally. with respect to informant Sn1ith newly disclosed materials fron1 forn1er ADA Jackson's trial file 

that predate Smith's plea and his testimony against Mr. Mozee further contradict the prosecutor's claim 

• I fS · I • · (' t • d representing that he fulfilled his obligations to tin1ely inforn1 Mr. Mozee s counse o n11t 1 s testnnony ins ea 

II 
the entry of what was effectively an illegal judgment and sentence reduction on Smith's behalf. 

In addition, the State failed to disclose to either defendant the fact that the lead homicide detective in this 

case assisted two other informants, Charles Manning and Alvin Degraftenreed, with pending probation 

violations before they testified. This fact is reflected in pretrial notes prepared by the lead trial prosecutor, 

Rick [ackson. and other information provided by the State during this proceeding pursuant to its ongoing 

Brady obligations; it directly contradicts the prosecutor's sworn testimony in this proceeding that he 

never assisted, or direcle<l anyone lo assist, a Stale infonnant wilh any pending criminal matter before the 

informant testified. 

This evidence is relevant to assessing the prosecutor's credibility on all of the due process issues presented in 

this writ, including whether he played any role in assisting informant Zane Smith with his own 

pending criminal charges, which were resolved by a highly favorable plea less than 

three weeks before he testified against Mr. Mozee. 

Finally. with respect to informant Smjth, newly disclosed materials from former APA Jackson's trial file 

that predate Smith's plea and his testimony against Mr. Mozee further contradict the prosecutor's claim 

that he fulfilled his obligations to timely inform Mr. Mozee's counsel of Smith's testimony (instead representing 

II 
to counsel that he had only been contacted by Smith a "few days"before trial); and to 

proyide the defense with Smith's prior written statements and other exculpatory 

information regarding Smith. 

The former trial prosecutor has admitted in this proceeding that he was under a legal obligation to provide 

this information to Mr. Mozee's counsel, yet he has no recollection or record of doing so. Because the Stale 

lacked any forensic or credible eyewitness testimony inculpating either defendant in the crime, and was 

forced to rely so heavily on informant testimony to prove its case, the violations here were 

unquestionably material to the outcome. Moreover, the State's violations were compounded by the 

fact that its former lead prosecutor (I) was under written orders from the trial court to make timely 

disclosure of this material, and (2) repeatedly elicited false testimony from both informants at trial 

disclaiming any expectation of, orunderstanding regarding, future personal benefits to themselves. 

As such, Mr. Mozee is entitled to relief if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony 

effected the judgment of the jury. 

12 
GROUND FOUR: 

The State Secured Applicants' Convictions Through the Presentation of False Testimony from Its Lead 

Detective in Violation of Due Process 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR: 

The State violated Mr. Mozee's due process rights when it secured his conviction through the knowingly 

false sworn statements of Det. Rick Berry. Det. Berry submitted an affidavit prior to trial in support of codefendant Allen's arrest jn whjcb he represented to the Court that be had thns far located "three 

employees" from the various business at which an unknown suspect, accompanied by a second man, had 

attempted to use the victim's stolen credit cards within hours of the murder. He further attested that he 

had shown defendant Mr. Allen's photo to each of"the three employees" he had identified from these 

locations, at which time they "all picked the defendant's photo as the person who had used the credit 

cards" He then repeated this alleged chain of events to the jury jn sworn te5tin1ony at Mr Mozee's trial. 

Newly-disclosed police reports from the District Attorney's trial file reveal that these statements 

were false. In fact, Det. Berry's own reports show that when this affidavit was submitted, police had 

interviewed five -- not three -- en1ployees fron1 the various businesses who had witnessed the use of the 

stolen cards. Moreover, not "all" of them selected Allen's photo: one clerk did not (identifying a different 

suspect), and the lineup report for the fifth (the store manager, who had the most direct contact with the 

13 
suspects) was never produced and may never have been prepared. 

Det. Berry's credibility was critical to the State's case: he was the only witness to the allegedly 

voluntary "confession" of guilt made by Mr. Mozee in custody, and he interviewed virtually all of 

the State's key informants and eyewitnesses. The new evidence that he misrepresented the 

nature of the eyewitness evidence to the Court and jury jn sworn statetpenrs 11nder1njnes confidence in 

the trial's outcome and requires due process relief. 

14 
GROUND FIVE: 

The State Failed to Disclose favorable Eyewitness Evidence in Violation of Due Process. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

The State's former trial prosecutors also failed to disclose exculpatmy evidence regarding eyewitnesses, in 

yjolatjon ofd11e process and the djstrjct court's express pretrial orders 

In partjcular the State failed to disclose the fact that Ms Kyapng Jang one of the three store clerks who 

purportedly identified Allen to Det. Berry, had earlier stated to another detective that she "could not 

recognized [sic] anyone in relation to the attempt [sic] use of the complainant's credit card, as she had not 

gotten a close look at the individual t1ying to use it." This report was addressed to Det. Berry, was dated 

more than a year before trial, and was part of the prosecution's trial file, but was never disclosed to either 

defense co1105el To addition the Dj5trjct Attorney's trial file contains reports and notes regarding at least 

one other key eyewitness who also did not identify Mr. Allen or Mr. Mozee: Insun Chon, a store manager 

who refused to complete the transaction with the man who tried to use the victim's stolen card. Yet there 

are no reports reflecting that eyewitness identification procedures (arrays/lineups) were shown to him --

despite the fact that Det. Berry showed the defendants' photographs to every other witness who viewed the 

suspects, including those with far more limited opportunities to view the suspects than Mr. Chon. 

15 
Recently obtained pretrial notes from Mr. Jackson's trial flle also indicate that(!) Mr. Chon did not idenlify 

Allen or Mozee as the perpetrator, and (2) Mr. Jackson met with several of the eyewitnesses who made the 

allegedly positive identifications shortly before the defendants' trials, yet did not call them as 

witnesses. This undisclosed exculpatory matherial further undermines confidence in the coutcome of the 

triaL 

16 
GROUND SIX: 

A ppJican ts 'ATere Co quieted on the Basis of False Te5tjn1 any b~r Ja jlbgp5e In fonna n ts Req11h·j ng Due Process 

Relief Even if the Witnesses' Perjury Was Unknown to Prosecutors 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

Two State informants -- Lone! Hardeman and Zane Smith -- have given voluntary interviews lo 

Applicants' counsel in which they admit that they gave false testimony at the trials of Mr. Mozee and Mr. 

Allen. Smith has specifically admitted what was already indicated from the newly disclosed file materials: 

that he falsely testified when he claimed to expect no personal benefits from the State in exchange for his 

testimony. In fact, he believed he had been specifically promised by the trial prosecutor that the State would seek 

a sentence reduction on his behalf after he testified. Testimony by Smith at trial, and by the former prosecutor in 

this writ proceeding, that they had no express or even implied "deal" is further undermined by the fact that arter 

both trials were over, ADA Jackson went to extraordinary lengths to obtain the promised benefit for Smith, by 

filing an "agreed motion for a new trial" even after the time to seek (and the court's jurisdiction to grant) such 

relief had expired, resulting in the entry of what was effectively an illegal judgment and sentence reduction on 

Smith's behalf. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously held that due process requires relief where new evidence 

reveals that a key witness's trial testimony against a defendant was false, whether 

17 
or not trial prosecutors knew or should have known of its falsity. Thus, the informants' recantations, if 

credited, would provide further grounds for granting the writ (in addition to the considerable documentary 

evidence establishing due process violations regarding these informants as set forth separately in Ground Three, 

supra). 

18 
GROUND SEVEN: 

Applicant Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

Applicant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in at least three respects: 

(a) Counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony elicited by the State from Det. Rick Herry that 

three slore clerks had "identified" Mr. Mozee's co-defendant, Dennis Allen, as the person vvho used the 

victinl's stolen credit card on the night of the murder. Counsel also failed to conduct a reasonable pretrial 

investigation into these alleged identifications. This lack of diligence allowed the State to hnproperly argue 

in summation that the identifications of Allen corroborated Mr. Mozee's custodial "confession." which greatly 

prejudiced Mr. Mozee. Indeed, at Mr. Allen's trial (when this hearsay testhnony was not used), none 

of the three store clerks actually identified Allen: one clerk recanted his earlier alleged identification, and the 

other two clerks did not testify. 

(b) Counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness and truthfulness of Mr. Mozee's custodial 

"confession" when he failed to obtain and introduce recent medical records showing that Mr. Mozee had a 

docun1ented history of serious n1ental illness, including schizophrenia1 that n1ade hin1 susceptible to giving a 

false and involuntary confession. Counsel also failed to retain a qualified expert on false confessions or 

19 

20 
GROUND SEVEN: 

Applicant Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

Applicant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in at least three respects: 

(a) Counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony elicited by the State from Det. Rick Berry that 

three store clerks had "identified" Mr. Mozee's co-defendant, Dennis Allen, as the person who used the 

victim's stolen credit card on the night of the murder. Counsel also failed to conduct a reasonable pretrial 

investigation into these alleged identifications. This lack of diligence allowed the State to improperly argue 

in summation that the identifications of Allen corroborated Mr. Mozee's custodial "confession.'• which greatly 

prejudiced Mr. Mozee. Indeed, at Mr. Allen's trial (when this hearsay testimony was not used),= 

of the three store clerks actually identified Allen: one clerk recanted his earlier alleged identification, and the 

other two clerks did not testify. 

(b) Counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness and truthfulness of Mr. Mozee's custodial 

"confession" when he failed to obtain and introduce recent medical records showing that Mr. Mozee had a 

docun1ented history of serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, that n1ade hin1 susceptible to giving a 

false and involuntary confession. Counsel also failed to retain a qualified expert on false confessions or 

19 
GROUND SEVEN: 

Applicant Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

Applicant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in at least three respects: 

(a) Counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony elicited by the State from Det. Rick Berry that 

three store clerks had "identified" Mr. Mozee's co-defendant, Dennis Allen, as the person who used the 

victim's stolen credit card on the night of the murder. Counsel also failed to conduct a reasonable pretrial 

investigation into these alleged identifications. This lack of diligence allowed the State to improperly argue 

in summation that the identifications of Allen corroborated Mr. Mozee's custodial "confession!" which greally 

prejudiced Mr. Mozee. Indeed, at Mr. Allen's trial (when this hearsay testimony was not used), none 

of the three store clerks actually identified Allen: one clerk recanted his earlier alleged identification, and the 

other two clerks did not testify. 

(b) Counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness and truthfulness of Mr. Mozee's custodial 

"confession" when he failed to obtain and introduce recent medical records showing that Mr. Mozee had a 

documented history of serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, that made him susceptible to giving a 

false and involuntary confession. Counsel also failed to retain a qualified expert on false confessions or 

19 
otherwise present evidence to help the jury understand why the "confession" lacked any indicia or truthfulness 

or reliability. This ineffectiveness greatly prejduced Mr. Mozee because it allowed the State to argue in 

summation that there was no evidence he suffered from mental illness, that he was feigning symptoms of 

mental illness, and that his signed confession was voluntary and reliable. 

(c) At an evidentiary hearing on this writ application, trial prosecutor Rick Jackson admitted that 

he had no specific recollection of showing Mr. Mozee's counsel the letters received from informants Hardeman 

and Smith regarding the benefits they expected to recejve from the State jn exchange for thejr testimony; nor 

did he have any file notation corroborating his belief that he must have fulfilled his obligation lo Mr. Mozee's 

counsel to disclose this correspondence to him. The evidence establishes that the prosecutor did not show 

these letters to either defense counsel. However, if the court finds the prosecutor's testimony in this regard is 

convincing, then there is clear and obvious ineffective assistance of counsel by defense counsel in failing to use 

these letters at trjal to j1npeacb the testj1nony ofS1nith clajmjng he had no deal. 

agreement, arrangement or understanding that the stale would assist him with his own plea and sentence, or to 

seek a new trial for Mr. Mozee based on the Idlers and the false testimony given by the various informants al 

both trials. This ineffective assistance, if proven, would be deficient performance by counsel and would 

20 
undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. 

21 
WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT 

RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

VERIFICATION 

This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For 

verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf. A 

petitioner is a person filing the application on behalfofan applicant, for example, an applicant's 

attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody. 

The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a 

notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented 

by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" as petitioner and 

then complete "Petitioner's Information." A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a 

Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which 

case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner. 

A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" 

before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information." An inmate petitioner 

must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or the "Inmate's 

Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate "Petitioner's 

Information." 

OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC 

ST A TE OF TEXAS 

Dallas 

COUNTY OF _____ _ 

Ezekiel Tyson, Jr. , being duly sworn, under oath says:"! am 

the applicant I petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the contents of the above 

application for a writ of habeas corpus and, according to my belief, the facts stated in the 

application are true." 

VERONICA SCOTT 

My Commission E•pires 

January 6. 2019 

22 

• 
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION 

Petitioner's printed name: -'E"'-z'"'e"'k"'ie-'-1 ..oT ... vs'"'o"-n"-, ""!rec.--------

Address: __ T_h_e_T_y~s_o_n_L_a_w_F_i_r_m ___________ _ 

342 W. Montana Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75224 

214-942-9000 

Telephone: --------------------

Fax: 214-942-9001 

~ Signature of Petitioner 

24 
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION 

Petitioner's printed name: Ezekiel Tyson, Jr. 

State bar number, if applicable: __ 2_40_3_4_7_1_5 _______ _ 

Address: The Tyson Law Firm 

342 W. Montana Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75224 

Telephone: 214-942-9000 

214-942-9001 

INMATE'S DECLARATION 

I, ______________ , am the applicant I petitioner (circle one) and 

being presently incarcerated in ______________ ,, declare under penalty of 

perjury that, according to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct. 

Signed on _________ , 20 __ . 

Signature of Applicant I Petitioner (circle one) 

23