RE: MATTERS OF HABEAS APPLICATION 

CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13-A 

EX PARTE MAURICE CAIN 

CAUSE NO. WR - 82, 716 - 02 

DATE: 02/06/2015 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

OF TEXAS, IN AUSTIN. 

~ECEIVED ~[\ij OOURTOFCRIMINAlAPPEALS ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

FEB 1 o 2015 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE(S) OF SAID COURT: 

Abet Acosta, crerk 

COMES NOW, MAURICE CAIN, RELATOR herein, and files this "ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF MANDAMUS" complaining of "THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION THROUGH A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL 

MATERIAL FACTS, " in the 24lst JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SMITH COUNTY, TYLER, TEXAS, · · 

JtJDGE-JACKSKEENJR. presiding, with CONSPIRATORY PARTICIPANT'S: SMITH:COUNTY DISTRICT 

CLERK, LOIS ROGERS; SMITH COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY D. MATT BINGHAM; and, 

ATTORNEY OF RECORD STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN; RESPONDENT(S) herein, with RELATOR showing as 

follows: 

I 

PROCEDURAL FACTS 

RELATOR submitted an 11.07 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to the SMITH COUNTY 

DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE that was FILED SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 (CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET [ CSS'i 

HEREIN])(SEE CSS at pages 1- 19), SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, LOIS ROGERS through 

DEPUTY LINDA RHYMES gives CONEIRMATiOW OE E1l11N(;. (CSS at page 34). 

RELATOR submitted "PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL" on SEPTEMBER 05, 

2014 (CSS at pages 20, 22, 24, and 26), that was FILED SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 (CSS at pg. 

20), NO COMFIRMATION OF FILING. 

RELATOR submitted "MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO RELEASE DEFENDANT'S 

RECORD" on SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 (CSS at pg.:37) NO CONFIRMATION OF FILING. /-

RELATOR RECEIVED-CONFIRMATION OF "STATE:1:S ANSWER TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HAABEAS 

CORPUS AND DESIGNATION OF ISSUES" ( CSS at pgs'. 38 - 41) FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014, 

--

however, "MEMORANDUM ORDER" FILED ?EPTEMBER 19, 2014_(CSS at pg. 41) was BLANK.WITH NO 

COMFIRMATION OF FILING (SEE ATTACHMENT A; ATTACHED HERETO). 

RELATOR RECEIVED from ATTC1RNEY OF RECORD, STEN MARTI LANDSJOEN, A CONFIRMATION 

LETTER FOR RECEIPT OF RELATOR'S "MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO RELEASE 

DEFENDANT'S RECORDS," DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014, advising relator of his right to copies, 

AND,VIDEO,RECORDING OF ARREST, AND WAS TO CHECK WITH TDCJ UNIT STAFF HOW TO SUBMIT TO . -' . '_\. ~ . ':.: _.:-"\. l. ·._);""'. 

-/ 

1 
.-. 

I 

PROCEDURAL FACTS 

ALL ITEMS, HOWEVER TO THIS DATE ATTORNEY HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT SAID ITEMS'. (SEE ATTACHMENT 

B, attached hereto), AS OF THIS DATE FILED TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 

RELATOR submitted "NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS:::LETTER TO SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

D ~·~MATT BINGHAM explaining BRADY MATERIAL SOUGHT WAS THE THREE INDIVIDUAL VIDEO 

RECORDINGS OF THE TWO POLICE OFFICER'S AND THE PARAMEDIC VIDEO 'NOT THE EDITTED I 

CONSOLIDATED VERSION PRODUCED BY THIS DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUT THE ORIGINALS (CSS at pg. 

42):referenced in the REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED PHOTOGRAPHIC I 

SOUND RECORDINGS, CERTAIN ASSOCIATED POLICIES, AND INFORMATION (CSS at pgs. 42, 44-46); 

and, ~LETTER TO CLERK'S OF THE::24lst DISTRICT COURT AND COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, 

REVEAE.ING NEW ADDRESS, FILING OF AFOREMENTIONED REQUEST, AND COMPLAINING OF--cMEMORANDUM 

BLANK ORDER RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE WITH NO DATE FOR ATTORNEY LANGSJOEN 

AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED (ATTACHMENT A, compare CSS at pg. 41);" submitted OCTOBER 15, 

2014 (CSS at pgs. 42, 43, 46), FILED OCTOBER 17, 2014 with NO CONFIRMATION (CSS at pg. 

42). 

RELATOR received ATTORNEY STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN'S AFFIDAVIT, mailed. NOVEMBER 14, 

2014, certified NO. 7009ll410IOOOOI7437I7374, FILE STAMPED 2014 NOV 14 PM 3:19 (CSS at -------- pg. 47). DOCUMENTATION RELATOR received consisted of CSS PGS. 47- 63, NOTICE, AGAIN, 

CSS pg~ 51 NOT SIGNED NOR NOTORIZED, FURTHER NOTICE CSS pgs. 47 - 51 "DO NOT have a 

date.".and TIME IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER.AS DO CSS:':PGS 52 - 63." NOR DOES AMENDED NOTICE ·-- -- OF FILING (CSS at 64 - 65) FILE STAMP DATED 2014 NOV 18 PM 1:03 (CSS at pg 64) with 

NOTaRIZED AFFIRMATION TO AFFIDAVIT,SUBMITTED AND FILED 4 DAYS PRIOR ( COMPARE, CSS at 

pgs. 47 & 51; 64 & 65). 

RELATOR submitted NOVEMBER 2g, 2014, an 'AFFIDAYIT...:./:_ADDENDIJM?TO~'lL:07_.APPLIE:ATIQN. 

IN RESPONSE_'TO~:_AFFIDA:VIT_:_OF:_STEN MARTJ Ll:l.NGSJOEN;:.FILED 2014 DEC -2 AM 11:08 (CSS at 

pgs. 66 - 70) , NOTICE DISTRICT CLERK'S LETTER ( CSS at pg. 70) :· • . "in this HABEAS 

PROCEEDING to be filed as an ADDENDUM I RESPONSE in said proceeding." NO COMFIRMATION. 

RELATOR submitted DECEMBER 14, 2014, a MOTION ORDERING ACCESS TO RECORDS (CSS at 

pgs 71- 73), FILED 2014 DEC 16 AM 10:54 (CSS at pg. 71). NO CONFIRMATION. 

RELATOR received JANUARY 07, 2015 the STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO 

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (CSS at pqs. 74 - 80, with attached documentation 

~gs. 81- 104), FILED 2015 JAN -2 PM 2:15 (CSS at pg. 74). NOTICE ATTACHMENT IAFFIDAVIT OF MR. STEN LANGSJOEN (CSS at pgs. 81- 99) NOTARY PAGE BLANK (CSS at pg. 87); 

ATTACHMENT II - LETTER OF JULY 10, 2014 (CSS at pgs. ·100 - 101) REQUEST DOCUMENTATION 

FAVORABLE TO DEFENSE (CSS at pg 101) NO CONFIRMATION, FILED 2014 JUL 15 == --:23; and, 

FILED 20J.!5'i'JAN 112 PM 3:32 (CSS at pg 102) WRIT ,OE HABEAS CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

2 
I ' 

PROCEDURAL FACTS 

CONCLUSION OF LAW. (CSS at pgs. 102- 104), SIGNED AND DATED BY JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR. 

(COMPARE, ATTACHMENT C, at pgs. 1- 3), however, ATTACHMENT~ was an attachment to 

STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,. 

FILED 2015 JAN -2 PM 2:15, NOW SAME DOCUMENT FILED 2015 JAN 12 PM 3:32, and SIGNED BY 

JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., AND DATED'l2 JANUARY 2015. 

RELATOR I 'UPON ''RECEIPT JANUARY' 07, 2015 of the STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN 

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (CSS at pgs. 74 - 104, as explained 

above), DID SUBMIT "APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER I REQUEST IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER," the morning of JANUARY 12,. 2015 in compliance with "THE MAILBOX 

RULE" ( See TEX. R. APP. PROC.[TRAP] RULE 49.1; also, RAMOS v RICHARDSON, 228 SW 3d 671, 

673 (TEX. 2007); SPOTSVILLE v CAIN, 149 F 3d 374, 377 (5th CIR. 1998); FED. R. APP. PROC. 

RULE 25 (a)(2)(C)) and was to be CONSIDERED TIMELY FILED THAT VERY DAY OF JANUARY 12, ----- 2015 (SEE ATTACHMENT ~: APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER I REQUEST IN OPPOSITION TO 

STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER, at pgs. 1 - 5, omitting CLERK'S LETTER and UNSWORN 

DECLARATION), WITH NO CONFIRMATION OF FILING OR SUBMISSION TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

AS OF PRESENT !'DATE •. 

RELATOR' received: JANUARY 15, 2015, CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET (CSS) PAGES 1 - 110, also. 

INCLUDED, LETTER OF PROCEEDING HELD, LETTER OF COMPLIANCE TRAP RULE 34.5 (~) & (.e.), 

signed by LINDA RHYMES and DATED JANUARY 13, 2015. (THE SAME DAY MAILED OUT TO RELATOR, 

WITH ONLY NOTIFICATION OF "FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE 

JACK SKEEN, JR."[CSS at pgs. 102.- 104]), and TABLE OF CONTENTS (COMPLETE CSS 1-110). 

II 

THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

'RELATOR as a.PRO-SE LITIGANT;coilfined-in the.'TDCJ-ID, acquires an already 

insurmountable, nearly impossible, task to demonstrate RELATOR'S BURDEN OF PROOF, then 

to add the diminishing factor that THE SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, LOIS ROGERS; THE 

RELATOR'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD, STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN; THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, D. 

MATT BINGHAM; and, A 24lst DISTRICT JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., PARTICIPANT'S herein, having 

entered into an agreement inferred from the concert actions among the PARTICIPANT'S 

and to be considered voluntaryfromthe collation of circumstances to follow (SEE, 18 

USCA 371; US v THON, 917 F 2d 170, Id.), these become the precursors for "THE ABUSE OF 

DISCRETION THROUGH A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS." 

When there is a need for the PARTICIPANT'S to act and failure to act when there is 

~ DUTY TO DO SO, PARTICIPANT'S RECKLESSLY DISREGARD RELATOR'S RIGHTS as follows: 

3 
II 

THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

A. THE SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, LOIS ROGERS, AS PARTICIPANT. 

RELATOR FILED numerous documentation to be presented to the 24lst DISTRICT COURT, 

however, was never made aware by this CLERK of said filings and/or said presentations, 

with the exception of "LETTER TO DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF WRIT 09-03-14 (See 

CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET [CSS] at pg. 34)," until receipt of CSS 01/15/2015, revealing 

filings only, but NO NOTIFICATION OF COURT PRESENTATION OF RECORD (See CSS entirety). 

RELATOR's·presentation of the numerous documentation with submission and filing 

dates as follows: 

CSS PAGES SUBMITTED/PG. NO.(S) css FILED/PG. NO. ( S) 

1) 20 -·26 SEP 05, 2014 I 20,22,24,26 SEP ~ 3j.~ 2014 /_~20 

2) 37 SEP 8, 2014 I 37 SEP 10, 2014 I 37 

3) 42 - 46 OCT 15, 2014 I 42,43,46 OCT 17, 2014 I 42 

4) 66 - 70 NOV 28, 2014 I 69 DEC 2, 2014 I 66 

5) 71 - 73 DEC 14, 2014 I 73 DEC 16, 2014 /71 

6) 100 - 101 JUL 10, 2014 I 100,101 JUL 15, 2014 I 101 

7) ATTACHMENT D 1 - 5 JAN 12, 2014 I 5 UNKNOWN FILING . 

and, 

.. ' , The SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, LOIS ROGERS' blatant violations of duties and lack 

of requisite process has deprived and:ptejudiced the interests for RELATOR'S RIGHT to 

include a fair and impartial review of facts through relevant material, and to REDRESS 

THE GOVERNMENT in a judicial process, thatas designed and structured was to be 

implemented as practiced without an oppressive, abusive, and grossly prejudicial 

application to this RELATOR. The actions of the PARTICIPANT is totally lacking in even 

a facsimile of reasonable procedural safegaurds that are CONSTITUTIONALLY sufficient 

to protect against unjustified deprivations of RELATOR'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND RIGHT 

TO DUE PROCESS. 

PARTICIPANT'S acts of commission and/or omission, whether by calculated intent and 

design, or combined error, incompetance, apathy and ignorance, has committed an ABUSE 

OF DISCRETION TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT to the HABEAS PROCEEDING DECISION. 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL. APPEALS ALL THINGS CONSIDERED SHOULD REVERSE AND REMAND FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH COUNSEL APPOINTED. TO ASSIST RELATOR IN ALL MATTERS. 

B. THE HIRED ATTORNEY OF RECORD, STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN, AS PARTICIPANT. 

The RELATOR'S GROUND FOR RELIEF was designated for future resolution per MEMORANDUM 

ORDER OF THE 24lst JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., presiding, and as 

SPECIFIED was to be HELD BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ONLY ~CERNING THE ALLEGATIONS OF 

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. However, MEMORANDUM ORDER (See, ATTACHMENT A) was 

made p~rt of STATE'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 

4 
II 

THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

DESIGNATION OF ISSUES, that had neitherbeenFILE STAMPED,,DATE ISSUANCE FOR SUBMISSION 

had not been entered, NOR. HAD THE JUDGE SIGNED OR DATED THE ORDER .. (See, ATTACHMENT A) • 

FURTHERMORE, there was NO ISSUANCE FROM THE SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK,AS ORDERED IN 

MEMORANDUM ORDER, AND AS REQUESTED BY RELATOR 02TOBER 15, 2014, in his "NOTICE OF CHANGE 

OF ADDRESS", "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED PHOTOGRAPHIC / SOUND 

RECORDINGS, CERTAIN ASSOCIATED POLICIES, AND INFORMATION," that included LETTERS TO: 

D. MATT BINGHAM, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY SMITH COUNTY; AND, CLERK'S OF THE COURT: 

24lst DISTRICT COURT C/O LOIS ROGERS, DISTRICT CLERK; and, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 

C/O ABEL ACOSTA, COURT CLERK; specifically designated at, "FOR THE 24lst POST CONVICTION 

WRIT CLERK,"through entirety (See, CSS at pgs. 42- 46, esp. 43). Therefore, RELATOR'S 

''AFFIDAVIT j ADDENDUM TO 11.07 APPLICATION IN RESPONSE TO: AFFIDAVIT OF STEN MARTI 

LANGSJOEN," (See, CSS at pgs. 66·- 70) as REQUESTED IN DISTRICT CLERK LETTER was to be 

filed in this HABEAS PROCEEDING as an ADDENDUM / REPONSE in said proceeding (See, CSS 

at pg. 70, Id.), and does constitute evidence in the case as it has been introduced at 

the hearing as ORDERED BY THE 24lst. DISTRICT COURT, "BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ONLY." SEE, 

BADGETT v STATE, 79 SW 3d 58l(TEX. APP. -HOUSTON [ 14th DIST.) 2001) at 586 f.n. (2). 

RELATOR was prejudiced by the SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK'S FAILURE TO RESPOND.WITH'A 

FILING DATE, THUS, RELATOR'S "AFFIDAVIT/ ADDENDUM TO 11.07 APPLICATION IN RESPONSE TO: 

AFFIDAVIT OF STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN," filed DECEMBER 02, 2014 (CSS, at pgs. 60- 70), 

this included a letter to DISTRICT CLERK to file in the HABEAS PROCEEDING AS AN ADDENDUM 

/RESPONSE IN SAID PROCEEDING (CSS, at pg. 70). This HABEAS PROCEEDING was no more than 

"a·pre:requisite to presenting a point of error on appeal only when necessary to adduce 

facts not in the record," with "types of evidence allowed at HEARING,.the court may 

receive evidence by AFFIDAVIT or otherwise (See, TEX. R. APP. PROC.[TRAP) RULE(S) 21.2 

& 21.7)~" which was the ONLY MEANS POSSIBLE TO RELATOR as ORDERspecifies " .. defendant 

is NOT to be brought back to SMITH COUNTY JAIL for a hearing," and the RELATOR'S 

AFFIDAVIT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ALL THINGS RELATING TO THE HEARING AS SELFREPRESENTATION. (See, CSS, at pgs. 66- 70). 

FURTHERMORE, something is amiss in the DISTRICT CLERK and CRIMINAL DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY of ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT with an AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING, and the AFFIDAVIT 

presented in STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS omitting the AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING (See, CSS, .at 47- 63, compare 82- 99). 

RELATOR explains defects in C. THE SMITH COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, D. MATT 

BINGHAM. 

5 
·II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY\ 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

RELATOR contends it is well settled law in the STATE OF TEXAS that in a prosecution 

of any individual an INFORMATION and/or INDICTMENT is needed to inform the individual 

by notice of the charges in which the STATE is willing to prove in order to properly 

convict him of the crime cited BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of a jury of his peers in this 

case. (CSS, INDICTMENT at pg. 27). 

ATTORNEY STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN was surely aware of the (2)·two charges pending in 

RELATOR'S CASE, specifically, POSS CS PG l < lG, CAUSE NO. 241-0009-13 (CSS, at pgs 52 & 

88); and, TAMPERING/ FABRICATE PHYS EVID W /INTENT TO IMPAIR, CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13 

(CSS, at pgs. 56 & 9l). HOWEVER, ATTORNEY OF RECORD in order to be effective upon 

investigation of INDICTMENT, by mere observation, one can see:.· 

l) 'there·is.NO FILING DATE.NOR·SIGNATURE OF CLERK (DEPUTY)(CSS, at pq. 27); 

2) INDICTMENT CERTIFICATION is incomplete, NO DATES, CLERK SIGNATURES, WITNESSES, ETC. 

(CSS, at pq. 28); FURTHERMORE, 

3) there. IS NO ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH (CSS, at pgs. 27[1 of l] & 28~ compare JUDGEMENT 

at PLEA TO lst ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH, CLEARLY THERE ARE NO ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS, 

css, at pgs. 27- 30). 

RELATOR, as would be known by an ATTORNEY of such caliper as STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN, 

as referenced in the introduction of HIS AFFIDAVIT to the 24lst DISTRICT COURT, was 

) 

stopped for an ASSUMED TRAFFIC VIOLATION. HOWEVER, in accordance with the I~DICTMENT, 

assumedly issued by a GRAND JURY for CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13, was TO KNOW THAT AN 

INVESTIGATION AND OFFICIAL PROCEEDING WAS PENDING AND IN PROGRESS, TO-WIT (IN OTHER WORDS 

SPECIFICALLY): POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, .... , KNOWING THAT AN OFFENSE HAD 

BEEN COMMITTED, TO-WIT: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, ...• , WHEN YOU'RE BEING 

STOPPED FOR AN ASSUMED TRAFFIC VIOLATION. This point of the INDICTMENT WAS NEVER PROVEN 

AND THE VERDICT BY THE JURY IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW. AND THE EVIDENCE. ( CSS, at pg. 27) . 

Add this to the KNOWN EDITED TAPES PRESENTED AS BRADY MATERIAL, WHEN IT IS QUITE CLEAR 

THAT TWO (2) POLICE OFFICER DASH CAMERAS AND ONE (l) PARAMEDIC CAMERA WOULD SENSIBLY 

BE THREE ( 3) SEPERATE. AND: INDIVIDUAL AUDIO / VIDEO TAPES / DVD 'S, AND Nor ONE AUDIO / ,, 

VIDID DVD, OR EDITED VERSION, OMITTING / DELETING FAVORABLE DEFENSE PORTIONS, THEREBY, 

DEMINISHING ANY ADEQUATE DEFENSE FOR COMFIRMING EXCESSIVE FORCE ALTERCATION FOR A ' . : 

TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DENYING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF RELATOR. The U.S. SUPREME COURT has 

held the suppression of the co-defendants confession was a violation of the DUE PROCESS 

CLAUSE of the 14th AMENDMENT. SPECIFICALLY, the COURT held "SUPPRESSION BY THE PROSECUTION 

OF EVIDENCE FAVORABLE ~ AN ACCUSED UPON REQUEST VIOLATES DUE PROCESS where the evidence 

is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good or bad faith of 

the PRiJSECUTION (SEE, BRADY, 373 US I 87, 83 s CT ) . 

6 
II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

The RECORD before the COURT .OF CRIMINAL APPEALs·, in regard to this ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD filing and/or adoption of previous ATTORNEY'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS, IS DEVOID OF, 

NOT ONLY THE FILINGS, BUT ANY RULING BY THE 24lst COURT, as to MOTION TO SUPRESS, MOTION 

IN LAMINE, and/or ANY MOTION OR RULINGS as is sufficient to establish_ efficien<;;wand1 

effectiveness of ANY ATTORNEY (CSS, CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET [CDS] at pgs. 105- 110)~ 

The 24lst COURT does however give a JUDICIAL ADMISSION and ..• "finds and concludes 

that the. defendant WAS NOT CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF COCAINE UNDER THIS CAUSE NUMBER~'' 

(See, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, CSS at pgs. 102 -

104, esp~ pg 103; also ATTACHMENT Cat pgs. 1- 3 esp. pg. 2), and was found GUILTY OF 

TAMPERING / FABRICATE PHYS. EVID. W / INTENT TO IMPAIR on 05/15/2013, CAUSE NO. 241-

0010~13. (CSS, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT B, at pg. 91), (5) five days later on 05/20/2013 the 

(POSSESSION CHARGE) POSS CS PG < lG, is DISMISSED, CAUSE NO. 241-0009-13 (CSS, DEFENDANT'S 

EXHIBIT A, at pg. 88). 

The RECORD REVEALS there was NO POSSESSION CHARGE ESTABLISHED; NO HEARING, RULING, 

OR FILING, OF A MOTION TO SUPPRESS; and, ONLY AT HEARING "STATE'S NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT" 

and, "NO PARAGRAPH OF ENHANCEMENT IN INDICTMENT" (CSS, AT ENTIRETY). DUE PROCESS, as to 

THE ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH, cannot be deemed to be satisfied by MERE NOTICE AND HEARING, 

to give NOTICE ONLY UPON A CONVICTION, which in truth is used as a means to substantially 

deprive this RELATOR of AN INCREASED LIBERTY is a deliberate deception to the COURT; 

ATTORNEY, AND THIS RELATOR TO DENY DUE PROCESS. Such a contrivance by the STATE to 

procure additional imprisonment of a RELATOR is as inconsistent with the rudimentary 

demands of justice as is obtaining of a like result by intimidation. Furthermore, had 

ATTORNEY OF RECORD filed A MOTION TO SUPPRESS, and if the MOTION had been GRANTED, ANY 

ALLEGED POSSESSION would not have been admitted into evidence. Because the ALLEGED 

POSSESSION BY THIS RELATOR was the only direct evidence of THIS RELATOR'S POSSESSION, 

it is unlikely that the ALLEGED EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION WITHOUT 

A POSSESSION CONVICTION, DUE IN PART TO THE ILLEGAL ARREST. AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE 

PROCESS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. The FACT that these THINGS ARE MISSING from the RECORD 

REVEALS COUNSEL'S DEFICIENCY in this case BY THEIR OMISSION. Ineffectiveness will be 

sustained only if the record affirmatively supports. such a claim. With that premise, a 

record which includes such omissions as the failure to FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS and a 

failure to object to the admission of evidence can still affirmatively support a claim 

of ineffectiveness •. Further, the ATTORNEY OF RECORD had a process established by the 

TEX~ R. APP. PROC. [TRAP] RULE 21, specifically: 

7 
II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

RULE 21.2 WHEN MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL REQUIRED 

A MOTION FOR NEw TRIAL is a prerequisite to presenting a point of error on appeal 

only when necessary to adduce facts not filed in the record. 

RULE 21.3 GROUNDS (IN PERTINENT PARTS) 

The DEFENDANT must be GRANTED a NEW TRIAL for "ANY'" of the following reasons: 

(e) when evidence tending to establish the DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE has been intentionally 

destroyed or WITHHELD, thus preventing its production at trial; and, 

(h) when THE VERDICT is contrary to the law and the evidence. 

This-ATTORNEY OF RECORD has been anything but effective, ethical, or honest. Case 

and point start with his viewing of the "EDITED TAPE OF ARREST" between my brother, 

myself, and this attorney. Upon reviewing he did advise there were clear FEDERAL CIVIL 

RIGHTS charges to pursue, thus his being hired. He has continued to promise numerous 

issues that have been but vapor on his lips. In his letter DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014, he 

advises he would send-copies of all records in his possession, to include the "VIDEO 

RECORDING OF RELATOR'S ARREST," as of the DATE OF THIS SUBMISSION there has been no 

further contacts, legal or otherwise- ( See·i ATTACHMENT B, STEN M. LANGSJOEN LETTER, DATED 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2014, 2 pqs.). 

For the reasons stated ATTORNEY OF RECORD, not onlv at trial, but in his AFFIDAVIT 

before this OCURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS has chose to CONSPIRE WITH THE STATE, .as a 

PARTICIPANT, to conceal the facts stated herein and throuqhout the record. Thus relief 

should be GRANTED TO RELATOR. 

C. SMITH COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, D. MATT BINGHAM, AS PARTICIPANT. 

RELATOR CONTENDS this DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE has assumed positions beyond its 

jurisdiction, by and through the power of documentation, it has assumed,:beyond the 

OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SPECIFICALLY, THK JUDGE AND: ATTORNEY OF RECORD, :COURT and 

OFFICE. In a manner as follows: 

The STATE FILES: "THE STATE'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT ·OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AND DESIGNATION OF ISSUES ·( CSS, at pgs. 38 - 41) , but NOTICE PAGE 41 and STATE'S 

ANSWER have-aiffeteht' filing·da:tes, 2014 SEP 12 & 2014 SEP 19, also NOTICE at #3 the 

DATE OF NOVEMBER 14th, a Friday: SIGNED AND ENTERED ... 19th .. SEPTEMBER; now NOTICE 

JUDGE'S SIGNATURE (COMPARE, ATTACHMENT·A, having none of the above completed). THE 

JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., JUST FILLED IN THE BLANKS and it got FILE STAMPED BY THE SMITH 

COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK. RELATOR'S COPY WAS ATTACHMENT A, BLANK. 

8 
II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

RELATOR on OCTOBER 15, 2014, did send a letter to the SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK; 

COURT OF CRIMINA17 APPEALS CLERK; SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALL RECEIVING SAME 

TRUE AND CORRECT DOCUMENTATION, SPECIFICALLY, NOTIFICATION OF ADDRESS CHANGE; COMPLAINING 

OF BLANK DATE OF\· MEMORANDUM ORDER; and, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION •••• ( CSS, at pgs. 42 - 46) . 

JANUARY -2, 2015, THE STATE FILES: "STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO 

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS," which also has attached, "WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW" BLANK {See, ATTACHMENT C, compare CSS, at pgs. 

102 - 104, FILED 2015 JANUARY 12, to-wit WAS NEVER FORWARDED UNTIL SMITH COUNTY CLERK 

SUBMITTED CSS FILE TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS). FURTHERMORE, SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY is fully aware of this RELATOR'S CURRENT ADDRESS as have received CERTIFIED 

LETTER DATED: OCTOBER 21, 2014 (See, ATTACHMENT E, LETTER), HOWEVER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

decide to now on JANUARY -2, 2015 to mail RELATOR~S COPIES OF STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL .•. 

to the previous addresscof., CHOICE MOORE UNIT (See, ATTACHMENT F), noticed after removal 

of FWD TO:(See, ATTACHMENT F & G), mailed JANUARY -2, 2015, RELATOR RECEIVED NOTICE OF 

STATE'S RESPONSE, JANUARY 07, 2015.P.M .. 

RELATOR, JANUARY 12, 2015, due in part to this DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE intentional 

delay to RELATOR'S NOTIFICATION OF ''STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER ••• " with JUDGE'S "WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW"' attaclied'~(see~· 'CSS, at pgs. 

74- 104, except CSS pgs. 102- 104 looked like ATTACHMENT c, pJs. 1- 3),thus the 

submission of "APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER/ REQUEST IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER," with NO NOTIFICATION FROM SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK'S FILING 

OR FORWARDING TO THE TRIAL COURT AND/OR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 

Thus far, RELATOR has proven the STATE has caused considerable delay of RELATOR'S 

RIGHT TO BE TIMELY NOTIFIED. The STATE.has filed (2) two seperate STATE'S ANSWERS, (1) 

one FILED 2014 SEP ~' (2) two FILED 2015 JAN -2 (See, CSS at pgs. 38 - 41; & 74 - 104; 

compare however, ATTACHMENT A to CSS pg. 41; then compare ATTACHMENT C pgs. 1- 3.to 

CSS pgs. 102- 104, esp. pgs. 3 with 104). 

The STATE not ONLY FILES ANSWERS TO THIS RELATOR'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, it also FILES THE ANSWER EXPECTED FROM THE COURT IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S 

OWN VIEW AND/OR WORDS. IS THE STATE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGE IN THESE MATTERS AND THE 

OFFICIAL JUDGE THERE FOR CREDENTIAL PURPOSE, BY NAME AND TITLE ONLY ? How can this be 

considered an unbias non-prejudicial ruling when, first the JUDGE has failed to consider 

any of RELATOR'S DOCUMENTATION, proven in a failure to make any sort of ruling in the 

record before this COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, second the documentation presented by the 

9 
II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

STATE reveals NO CHANGES AND/OR INDIVIDUAL RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE REFERENCING 

HIS INDIVIDUAL AND/OR PERSONALIZED!: PERCEPTION·,·: VIEWST. INSTINCTS/·: FACTS, FROM A PERSONAL 

INVESTIGATION OF THE RECORD BY RULINGS·: OF RELATOR'S DOCUMENTATION ASSUMEDLY BEFORE 

THE COURT, this brings into question the actual author of the "AFFIDAVIT OF STEN MARTI 

LANGSJOEN." 

The AFFIDAVIT OF STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN: 

1) RELATOR was never NOTIFIED, INFORMED, OR ADVISED OF the date LANGSJOEN AFFIDAVIT was 

to be filed, although REALTOR made ALL PERSONS AWARE OF NON-COMPLIANCE TO NOTIFY 

(See, ATTACHMENT A, CSS at pg. 41, and CSS at pgs. 42- 46,esp. pg 43); 

2) AFFIDAVIT FILED 2014 NOV 14 P.M. 3:19, "NOTICE OF FILING PROPERLY SIGNED BY STEN 

LANGSJOEN"((See, CSS, at pg. 47), however, CERTIFICATION PAGE TO BE SIGNED BY A 

NOTARY PUBLIC BLANK (See, CSS, at pg. 51), WHY WOULD THE DISTRICT CLERK FILE A 

DOCUMENT NOT PROPERLY' SUBMITTED, UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER MOTIVES AT PLAY ? ; 

3) AFFIDAVIT is clearly not faxed because there·;is NO DATE I NO TIME registered on the 

documentation, so a reasonable person would tend to believe it was either hand 

delivered or sent certified mail, although, certified mail would be questionable as 

STEN LANGSJOEN has it signed and dated "the 14th day of NOVEMBER, 2014"(See, CSS, 

at pg. 47), thisleaves only one alternative, that being it was hand delivered. NOW 

when you look at the AFFIDAVIT THROUGH ITS ENTIRETY on CSS, AT pg. ':63, it REVEALS 

11/14/2014 3:08 P.M., PRECISELY 11 MINUTES BEFORE FILING, WHILE THIS MIGHT BE 

POSSIBLE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT SEEM MIGHTY ':'PECULIAR'GIVEN THE PATTERN, 

PRACTICE, AND.-PROCEDURES.OF THIS CRIMINAL DISTRICT .ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ESPECIALLY 

WHEN;·THE AFFIDAVIT. SEEMS TO Frai COMPLETELY. IN -~ DIRECTION OF THE PROSECUTION :(see·, 

··, · •-q:$S,_- at -~'1\'}cY.~~-O~:t:"~Jj.:f~§\·!?8:('7''flt7 STAMP FILED DATE AND TIME; compare CSS, at LOWER .· I}IGHT CORNER "11/14/2014 3:08 P.M. [11 minutes]); and, 

4) Four days later STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN· has an "AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING" :(CSS'i':at pgs. 

!:4·&i65:t·i20141NOVi!l8TP';M-~H:03), with NOTARY PUBLICseal applied, day 14 scratched 

through, and the ATTORNEY STEN LANGSJOEN name compared to other documentation 

~ign~t~re~ seems less than authentic~ • ~ -.. I •' : ~ l ( '- :_ 

The CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SMITH COUNTY has become,.not only the DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY in this case,but, JUDGE AND ATTORNEY. This type of PROSECUT0RIAL MISCONDUCT,; 

that not only fails to produce BRADY MATERIAL that was needed for the defensive theory, 

contriving a conviction through omission of BRADY MATERIAL.and failure to prove beyond 

a reasonable doubt the possession needed to LAWFULLY CONVICT FOR THE CHARGE OF ,. ; ?):,f.:;:·:. 

"TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE," is CONSTITUTIONALLY UNSOUND, DEMINISHES THE VERY 

FIBERS OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AS FOUNDED BY THIS COUNTRY'S FOUNDING FATHERS. While a 

PROSECUTOR may have total immun:Utyit should not be upheld in a manner that appoints 

them asc•a'•DICTORIALSHIP as JUDGE, ATTORNEY, JURY, AND'>EXECUTIONER. This DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S actions throughout this HABEAS PROCEEDING points to the extremes this OFFICE 

will ailuae to continue the MALICIOUS PROSECUTION'AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS. 

This ABUSE OF POWER UNDER LAW should not be tolerated by the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 

RELATOR SHOULD BE GRANTED RELIEF TO DENY IS TO ENJOIN CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL. 

10 
II 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

THROUGH A CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS 

D. SMITH COUNTY, 24lst DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, JACK SKEEN, JR., AS PARTICIPANT. 

The JUDGE is sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTIONS AND,LAWS of both, TEXAS AND THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.-To do anything less is a NEGLECT OF DUTY and JUDICIAL 

MISCONDUCT, ESPECIALLY IF DONE SO UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. 

The JUDGE has a DUTY AND OBLIGATION to be impartial and fair, make RIGHT-RULINGS, 

DETERMINATIONS FROM THE RECORD ESTABLISHED, AND LAW PRESENTED, and not the mouth piece 

and yes person of the STATE. 

JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., has NOT ACKNOWLEDGED, and /OR RULED ON, OR IN FAVOR OF, ANY 

REQUEST, PETITIONS, MOTIONS, AFFIDAVITS, AMENDMENTS of this RELATOR, YET HAS PROMOTED 

EVERY DETAIL OF ANYTHING THE STATE HAS PLACED BEFORE HIM, GRANT EVERY PRE-WRITTEN ORDER 

WITHOUT THOUGHT~OR PERSONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS CASE. 

MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE "WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF 

LAW," (See, CSS at pgs. 102,... 104, esp. 103; also, ATTACHMENT Cat pgs. 1 -:3, esp. 2) 

with the signature of this JUDGE has become a JUDICIAL ADMISSION that the STATE has 

failed in this prosecution to prove "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT," when the RELATOR WAS 

"NO!' CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF COCAINE" NOR WAS IT PROVEN THAT RELATOR HAD POSSESSION 

OF COCAiNE, AS REQUIRED IN INDICTMENT. (CSS at pg. 27), THUS A DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE 

"FOSS CS PGl < lG" LISTED AS "DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A" IN ATI'ORNEY STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN 

AFFIDAVIT( (See, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A, CSS at pg. 88) ,AS:IT WAS NO!' PROVEN. RELATOR HAD 

CARE, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL. (POSSESSION), AND FUR'.I'HERK)RE, IT WAS NO!' PROVEN ANY ALLEGED 

COCAINE (SEE, INDICTMENT, CSS at pg. 27) WAS LAWFULLY SEIZED, NOR axJLD IT BE WITHOUT 

A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUANCE. The COURT found and concluded that the defendant (RELATOR) 

was NOT CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF COCAINE under this cause number (CSS at pg. 103; 

ATTACHMENT Cat pg. 2), HAD THERE BEEN EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A LAWFUL SEIZURE 

OF ANY COCAINE IN CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13, THER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A DISMISSAL OF CAUSE 

NO. 241-0009-13, which ATTORNEY OF RECORD, STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN, SHOULD HAVE INSISTED 

TO PROSECUTE FIRST, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF axJNSEL AS THE OUT COME \'«XJLD HAVE BEEN 

A DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES. 

JUDGE JACK SKEEN, JR., with the approval of the STATE'S WRITTEN "WRITOF~HABEAS 

CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW," has not only given a JUDICIAL ADMISSION 

TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO PROVE ALL, ESPECIALLY KEY ISSUE POSSESSION OF ASSUMED EVIDENCE 

THAT WAS TO HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH, FACTS OF THE INDICTMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE BELIEF, 

BY SAID APPROVAL THROUGH A NEGLECT OF JUDICIAL DUTY AND ORDER OF PROCEDURE, HAS NOW 

ENJOINED INTO THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION THROUGH A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS. 

11 
III 

SEPERATION OF POWERS IS 

A REFUTATION OF CONSPIRACY 

RELATOR asserts there is still a need for checks and balances between the JUDICIAL 

POWERS. In this particular case this was not accomplished. When. there is a need to act 

and failure to act when there is A DUTY TO DO SO, IT IS A RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THIS 

RELATOR'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS coupled with the knowledge of the anticipated unjustifiable 

DENAIL IN THIS HABEAS PROCEEDING due to THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS already incurred 

IN PROCESSESOF THE PROSECUTIONS MALICIOUS.MISCONDUCT, DENIAL OF BRADY MATERIAL, 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND THE LIST GOES ON. 

The fact that there was NO EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTE THE RELATOR IN CAUSE NO. 241-0009-

13, "POSSESSION CHARGE", THAT WAS IDSMISSED, should be sufficient to establish that the 

JURY'S VERDICT WAS CONTRARY TO THE INDICTMENT, and the ATTORNEY WAS TO FILE MOTION FOR 

NEW TRIAL, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DENIED THE VERDICT ''FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH POSSESSION 

AS SPECIFIED IN THE INDICTMENT. The STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE 

FACTS OF LAW ENTERED IN THE INDICTMENT TO PROVE RELATOR "TAMPERED WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE." 

Therefore, "The legal procedures in this case were [not] proper and as provided by the 

CONSTITUTION and TEXAS LAW." (See, ATTACHMENT C, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND CONCLUSION OF LAW at pg. 2, #8; also, CSS at pg. 103, #8). 

RELATOR has presented facts established from the record (as recalled) that show 

whether by calculated intent and design, or by their combined error, incompetance, 

apathy and ignorance, THEPARTICIPANT'S, have collectively, whether, either through acts 

of commission and/or omission, have entered into a "CONSPIRACY" to subject RELATOR to 

CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS AND INJURIES" thereby "INFLICTING GRIEVOUS LOSSES OF 

RELATOR'S PROTECTED LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY INTEREST" by and through their blatant 

violations and lack of requisite process before depriving RELATOR of those interest. 

PARTICIPANT'S COLLECTIVE ACTS, AS COMBINED IN THEIR CONSPIRACY and as utilized in 

a judicial process, that ·1as designed, structured, implemented as currently practiced in 

their oppressive, abusive, and grossly prejudicial application to the RELATOR is 

totally lacking in even a facsimile of reasonable procedural safegaurds that are 

CONSTITUTIONALLY sufficient to protect against unjustified deprivations of RELATOR'S 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS. 

PARTICIPANT'S COLLECTIVE ACTS / CONSPIRACY WILL RESULT IN VIOLATIONS THAT RISE TO 

THE LEVEL OF A SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT. Thereby subjecting RELATOR to the deprivation of his 

"FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS." Resulting in ,"A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" that 

is inconsistant with fair procedure; to the substantial~ detriment and injury of the 

RELATOR. 

12 
IV 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

RELATOR on a TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2015 P.M., received the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

NOTICE of receiving and presenting to said COURT, this RELATOR'S APPLICATION FOR 11.07 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, TRIAL COURT NO. ?41-0010-13-A; WR - 82, 716 - 01 (See, ATTACHMENT 

H), this "RECEIVAL AND PRESENTMENT" took place on 1/15/2015, and NOT MAILED UNTIL 

JANUARY 20, 2015, RELATOR RECEIVED 1/27/2015. "12 DAYS." 

RELATOR'S PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONS+DERED, RELATOR PRAYS the HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE BY ORDER OF ACQUITAL; ALTERNATIVELY, 

GRANT RELIEF JUSTIFIED THROUGH THE FACTS IN THIS CAUSE, WITH ANY AND ALL RELIEF THIS 

COURT DEEMS IN DEED AND EQUITY, KNOWING A FAILURE TO RULE IS TO ENJOIN THE CONSPIRACY 

TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS. 

SINCERELY, 

MAURICE 

1Jt~t~ CAIN #186j2514 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of RELATOR'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS has been served by u.s. MAIL, first class postage pre-paid, with placement in 

this TDCJ UNITS LEGAL MAIL RECEPTICAL, and therefore under "THE MAILBOX RULE" to be 

considered filed this day, addressed to: 

1) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPELAS OF TEXAS, P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 

78711; 

2) LOIS ROGERS, DISTRICT CLERK SMITH COUNTY, 100 N. BROADWAY, RM. 204, TYLER, TEXAS 

75702; and, 

3) D. MATT BINGHAM, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY SMITH COUNTY, 100 N. BROADWAY, 4th FL., 

TYLER, TEXAS 75702. 

SIGNED AND SUBMITTED THIS 0~ DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. 

cc: file 

/clerk 

cca 13 

__ 0.1.J?~~ 

MAURICE CAIN #18612514 

~OWLEDGE UNIT T/C 0 - 81 

1400 FM 3452 

PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803 - 2350 
UNSWORN DECLARATION 

I, MAURICE CAIN, TDCJ-ID NO. l861Q514i PRO-SE RELATOR herein, for the matters - --::: ·- ,- c" • • • - - l • • ,,", "":'~.·~ 

. stated iri and of the "ORIGINAL PETITIOr\( FOR WRIT'op {MANDAMUS II Wl th ATTACHMENTS A - HI 

by confinement in THE STATE OF TEXAS entitles the use: under both FEDERAL LAW (28 USCA 

§ 1746), and TEXAS STATE LAW (VTCA CIV. PRAC. AND REM.S CODE§§§ 132"001- 132.003); 

of this "UNSWORN DECLARATION" to declare under penalty of perjury, and RELATOR DOES SO 

DECLARE; '·'IN PLACE OF A WRITTEN DECLARATION, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, OATH, OR 

AFFIDAVIT SWORN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC," THAT the facts deposed, and facts of record 

claimed in documentation presented are true and correct .under penalty of perjury by 

this RELATOR. THEREFORE, with presentation of this "UNSWORN DECLARATION" ALL PRESENTED 

IS TO BE CONSIDERED "VERIFIED, CERTIFIED. AND SWORN TO BY THIS RELATOR." 

SIGNED THIS 06 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. 

cc: file 

clerk 

cca 

14 

--h2?2~ c:~ MAURICE CAIN #186~514 

POWLEDGE UNIT T/C 0 - 81 

1400 FM 3452 

PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803 ---?2350 
EX PARTE 

MAURICE CAIN 

CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13-A 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

MEMORANDUM 

IN THE 241'1 DISTRJCT COURT 

OF 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

The defendant, MAURICE CAIN, under a single ground for relief, alleges that he received 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. To determine the merit of this claim, a hearing will be held 

addressing the defendant's ground for relief. 

ORDER 

1""' The defendant's Ground for Relief is DESIGNATED for future resolution. 

2. A hearing will be held by way of affidavit only concerning the allegations of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. This hearing will consist of an affidavit from the defendant's trial 

counsel, Hon. Sten Langsjoen,.relative to his representation of the defendant at trial. 

3. Mr. Langsjoen shall submit an original and three copies of his ani davit to the post-conviction 

writ clerk by , 2014. The clerk shall then mail a copy of 

the affidavit to the defendant and forward a copy ofth~ affidavit to the appellate section of 

the Smith Cotinty Criminal District Attorney's Ot1ice: · 

4. The defendant is NOt to be brought back to th~ Smith County Jail for a hearing. 

5. The clerk ofthe court is ordered to send a copy of this, order to the defendant, Maurice Cain, 

TDCJ-ID # 01862514, Texas Department of Crin1irtal Justice, Choice Moore Unit, 1700 

. North FM 87, Bonharn, Texas 75418, mid to send a copy.ofthis order to the appellate section · 

ot~the District Attorney's'Office. ·· 

SIGNED AND ENTERED .this the·_·_ day of_.--,-----------'--____,-' 2014. 

HONORABLE JACK SKEEN, JR. 

Judge, 241 '

1 District Court 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

. Page 1 

I 
STEN M. LANGSJOEN 

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW. 

P.O. Box 539 

TYLER, TEXAS 75710-0539 

TELEPHONE 

(903) 531-0171 

Maurice Cain, Inmate No.: 1862514 

Choice Moore Facility 

1700N. FM 87 

Bonham, Texas 75418 

Privileged and Confidential 

RE: State ofTexas v. Maurice Cain 

Cause No.: 241-0010-13 

September 30, 2014 

214st Judicial District Court, Smith County 

Maurice Cain v. State of Texas 

Cause No: 12-13-00178-CR 

12th Court of Appeals, Tyler District 

Dear Mr. Cain: 

TELEFAX 

(903) 531-0187 

In regard to the above, the Trial Court's staff sentto my office, in an envelope dated 

09-25-:14, yours dated 09-08-14 referencing a "Motion for Order Directing Defense Counsel 

to Release Defendant's Records." · · · 

I do not recall receiving any requests from you for anything from the file prior to this . . ~ . . . . 

time. .. . 

.You do have a nghtto receive a copy ofybirr'file'illaterial.·in my .. possessibn~ and I 

·. will fo!Ward a r~dacted copy of same to you as soon as the file is r~trieved fr()m St()rage. I 

do not know how tq .haridle the delivery of the video re~x)iding ofyoui arrest~ and 1 will 

check with youi pris()n facility staff on how this can bC handled. . 

Upon receipt of your referenced letter, I. checked the website of the 12th Court of 

Appeals and I see· that the· judgment ·against you was modified and affirmed,. without the 

filing of a motion for rehearing and without the filingof a petition for discretionary review. 

I mention this because I do not have a copy of the Clerk's Record or of the Reporter's 

Record from your trial; however, copies of these records should be in the hands of the 

Appellate Clerk, the District Clerk, and your appellate attorney. 

This is some authority that would have supported your request to the appellate court 

- while it continued to have jurisdiction- for you to be provided access to the Reporter's 
Record and of the Clerk's Record; however, the appellate court may now have lost 

jurisdiction to hear such a request at this time. li1direct authority for a request to the 

appellate court can be found in Kelly v. State of Texas, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). The Kelly opinion dealt with an appellant's right to seek the appellate court's help in 

receiving copies of the Reporter's Record and of the Clerk's Record while the appellant was 

within his time limit to seek PDR relief; Since you are now out of your time limit to seek 

further substantive relief from the appellate court, Kelly may not support the appellate court 

hearing your motion, but it will not hurt to try. 

You can try two things to obtain the Reporter's Record and of the Clerk's Record: 1) 

send a letter to your appellate attorney and ask him to send you these records; and 2) you 

can try completing and fil.ing the enclosed form Motion for ProSe Access to the Appellate 

Record. ·You must sign and date the document where fudicated and send the original to the 

appellate clerk for filing: Twelfth Court of Appeals, 1517 West Front Street, Suite 354, 

Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Cathy Lusk, Clerk]. The Certificate of Service should be 

completed and copies of the Motion should be sent to your appellate attorney and to the 

State's appellate attorney. 

Best of luck to you. 

Respectfully, 

SMIJsl (w/ enc~) 

. . 1 • • 

. / 
EX PARTE 

MAURICE CAIN 

CAUSE NO. 241-001 0-13-A 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

INTHE241stDISTRICT COURT 

OF 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW 

The defendant in Cause Number 241-00 I 0-13 has filed his first Application for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The State filed a Response. The Court hereby enters its 

findings and conclusions. 

The Court takes judicial notice of all prior proceedings, reporter's records, the 

documents and papers contained in the files, and the docket sheets in Cause Number 

241-0010-13 and the first Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cause Number 

241-001 0-13-A. 

The Comi enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 

l. The defe~dant, MAURICE CAIN, was indicted in Cause No. 241 '"00 10-13, 

filed in the 24l~t District Court of Smith County, Te_xas, with the offense of 

Tampering with' Physical Evidence. 

2. The defendant pled "not guilty," and a jury trial was held: After thejury fou!ld '· ... 

him guilty, the defendant pleaded "tnie" to the State's notice of enhanceinent, 

and the jury· assessed punishment at twenty years ofiniprisonment and a 

$1 0~000:00 fine. On June 30, 2014, the .12111 Couit of Appeals affirmed the , . 

conviction and sentence. Cain v. State, No, 12-13-00l78-CR, 2014 Tex.App. 

LEXIS 7037 (Tex.App.- Tyler June 30, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for 

publication). . 

4. On September 3, 2014, the defendant filed his first Application for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. The State tiled a response seeking a designation of issues and 

an affidavit from the defendant's trial attorney, Mr. Sten Langsjoen. Said 

affidavit was subsequently provided to the Comt. 

t,.j' 
5. In his writ application, the defendant complains that his trial attorney, Mr. Sten 

Langsjoen was ineffective for failing to obtain allegedly "unedited" copies of 

the video recordings ofthe traffic stop and arrest of the defendant 

6. The Court takes judicial notice of all prior proceedings and files. The Court 

further finds and concludes that: 

The basis of the claim under this writ application is that Mr. Langsjoen was 

ineffective for not obtaining copies of allegedly "unedited" videos that would 

have shown the jury at trial that "excessive force" was used in his arrest and 

which would also "suppm1 a finding that drugs was planted on the defendant. 

" 

Initially, the Court tinds and concludes that the defendant was not charged with 

possessing cocaine under this cause number. Further, Mr. Langsjoen in his 

affidavit asserts that he receiycd full discovery from the State. He further avers 

that the testimony and video evidence offered by the State at trial "adequately 

demonstrated the force used against Mr. Cain during his arrest, and provided 

the jury with a description of Mr. Cain's injuries and his subsequent medical_ 

care for those injuries." The defendant has not argued in his writapplication; 

that the arrest video admitted at trial di-d not show the use of force against him 

by police, or that the jury was unaware of the force used by police in their 

attempt to preserve the evidence the defendant was trying to destroy) Mr. 

Langsjoen additionally states in his affidavit that the force shown on the trial 

video constituted mitigating evidence for the defendant. 

. . . 

The Courttinds and ~oncludes that the defendant has hotoffered any credible· 

evidence that Mr. Langsjoenwas ih~ffective for the reasons alleged under his 

ground f~r relief, m: that he s~tTered any hat:m therefrom. . '- . 

7. _The Cqurt finds and concludes thatthe defendant's writ allegations consist· 

solely of the barest allegations with no valid basis in the record or the law. 

8. The legal procedures in this case were proper and as provided by the 

Constitution and Texas law. 

Page 2 
9. The Court concludes that this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is not 

well taken and should in all things be DENIED. 

· 10. The Court after review of the application for habeas relief~ any answer, and the 

tile, finds and determines that there are no controverted previously unresolved 

facts material to the legality of the defendant's confinement. 

ORDER 

The Court orders the Clerk of the Court to immediately transfer to the Court 

of Criminal Appeals: ! . 

(I) a copy of the Application for Writ ofHabeas Corpus; 

(2) any answers and waivers executed qy the State~ 

(3) a copy of the files and docket sheets in t~e original cause of action and 

the tiles and docket sheets in the tirst Application for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus; and 

( 4) This certificate. 

SIG~ED AND CERTIFIED on this_· _·_day of __ -,-____ , 2015. 

HONORABLE JACK SKEEN, JR. 

·Judge, 24 P1 District Court 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

Page 3 
EXPARTE 

MAURICE CAIN 

CAUSE NO. 241-0010-13-A 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 24lst DISTRICT 

COURT OF 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER I REQUEST IN OPPOSITION TO 

STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 

TO THE HONORABLW'JUDGE OF THE 24lst DISTRICT COURT: 

COMES NOW MAURICE CAIN, APPLICANT PRO-SE, with APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER I 

REQUEST. IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER, IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR 

WRIT OF BABEAS CORPUS, and respectfully states the following to the COURT: 

I. HISTORY OF THE CASE 

Applicant, MAURICE CAIN, was indicted in Cause No. 241-0010-13, filed in the 24lst 

District Court of Smith County, Texas, with the offense of Tampering with Physical 

Evidence (TEXAS PENAL CODE[TPC] §37.09). Applicant pled "not guilty," ahd a jury trial 

was held. After the jury found him guilty, Applicant pleaded "true" to the State's 

notice of enhancement, and a jury assessed punishment at twenty years of imprisonment 

and a $10,000.00 fine. On June 30, 2014, the 12th Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant's 

conviction and sentence. CAIN v STATE; NO. 12-13-00178-CR, 2014 Tex App LEXIS 7073 

(Tex App- TYler June 30, 2014, no pet.)(hot designated for publication). 

II. APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

Applic<m·t alleges under a single ground _that his triai. attorney, Ste-n .Marti Langsjoen~ 

was ineffective~ (Writ App at 6-7). 

Applicant alleges Trial Attorney, The State, and theDistrict Cler~'s Office are 

CONSPIRING TO CONCEAL FACTS in this cause, denying a fair ·and impartial ruling in this 

HABEAS PROCEEDING. 

Applicant Aileges without PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LAWFULLY OBTAINED under the guise of a 

PRETEXT ARREST I STOP I DETENTION_ for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION there is NO COMMISSION OF THE 

OFFENSE, "TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" as legislated in the LAWS OF TEXAS. (TPC 

§ 37.09). Clear VIOLATION OF TEXAS' LAW AS LEGISLATED FOR THE COMMISSION OF "TAMPERING 

WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE." 

1 

7 
III: STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. TEXAS PENAL CODE [TPC] §37.09 (IN PERTINENT PARTS) states: 

a) Aperson commits an offense if/ "KNOWING" that an "INVESTIGATION OR OFFICIAL 

PROCEEDING IS PENDING OR IN PROGRESS," he: 

1) alters, destroys, or conceals "ANY RECORD, DOCUMENT, OR THING" with "THE INTENT" to 

impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence "IN THE INVESTIGATION OR 

OFFICIAL PROCEEDING;" or (2),(b),(c) Not Applicable (N/A) 

d) A person commits an offense if the person: 

1) "KNOWING THAT AN OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED," alters, destroys, or conceals "ANY 

RECORD, DOCUMENT, OR THING WITH INTENT" to impair, its verity, legibility, or 

availability as evidence as evidencein any subsequent "INVESTIGATION OF" or "OFFICIAL 

PROCEEDING RELATED TO THE OFFENSE;: or Nq further Applicability. 

B. APPLICANT WAS STOPPED FOR A "TRAFFIC VIOLATION (AS RECALLED) FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY 

EXECUTE A TURN," therefore: 

a) APPLICANT does not concede he committed anv traffic violation, nor was he "AWARE 

OF ANY INVESTIGATION OR OFFICIAL PROCEEDING PENDING OR IN PROGRESS, OR THAT ANY OFFENSE 

HAD BEEN COMMITTED FOR THE ASSUMED TRAFFIC STOP, NOR DID HE ALTER, DESTROY, OR CONCEAL 

ANY RECORD, DOCUMENT, OR THING WITH INTENT TO IMPAIR, ITS VERITY, LEGIBILITY, OR 

AVAILABILITY AS EVIDENCE IN ANY SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF OR OFFICAIL PROCEEDING 

RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC STOP (THE OFFENSE) WHEN HE: STEPPED OUT OF THE VEHICLE TO ONLY 

BE ASSUALTED THROUGH AN ABUSE OF FORCE FOR AN ASSUMED TRAFFIC STOP, BY TWO OFFICERS, 

SPECIFICALLY, OFFICER STEPHEN BLACK-AND JOSHUA HILL. 

b) .APPLICANT was not proven beyond a reasoriabl~ doubt to have committed . the offense', 

AS LEGISLATED BY TEXAS LAW I OF. "TAMPERING WITH PHY~ICAI, ;'EVIDENCE. II 

c) APPLICANT poses the question/ "WHAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CAN ONE TAMPER WITH FOR 

THE-OFFENSE OF A-TRAFFIC VIOLATION?" 

C. OFFICERS-PHYSICALLY ASSUALT, THROUGH AN ABUSE OF FORCE, APPLICANT UPON EXECUTING THE 

TRAFFIC STOP AND UPON SUBDUING APPLICANT, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT, OR OTHERWISE, NOR 

EXIGENT-CIRCUMSTANCES, WOTHOUT WARRANT, _MAKE THE DECISION TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE. 

D. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE filed on 01/03/2013, that on 03/07/12 - POSS CS PG 1 < lG 

a STATE JAIL FELONY, against APPLICANT which was "DISMISSED 05/20/2013." Attachment 

marked "DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A" of DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEN LANGSJOEN AFFIDAVIT submitted 

to the 24lst TRIAL COURT HABEAS PROCEEDING. 

2 
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS (CONTINUED) 

E. STATE'S ATTORNEY was allowed to present as evidence an "EDITED DVD" instead of the 

three (3) seperate and original tapes of the TWO SEPERATE POLICE CARS AND THE 

PARAMEDIC VIDEO, THEREBY PREJUDICING THE APPLICANT, DENYING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL 

TRIAL. 

F. APPLICANT has presented and "REQUEST RULINGS AND CONSIDERATION IN THIS HABEAS 

PROCEEDING PRIOR TO ANY ORDER ISSUANCE," to the DISTRICT CLERK OF SMITH COUNTY as 

follows: 

a) MAILED OCTOBER 15, 2014: 

1) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED PHOTOGRAPHIC I SOUND RECORDINGS, 

CERTAIN ASSOCIATED POLICIES, AND INFORMATION PURSUANT TO BOTH: TEXAS ALW, RULE 192 

TEX. R. CIV. PROC. AND, FEDERAL LAW, RULE 34, FED. R. CIV. PROC., WITH LETTERS TO 

"NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS," TO: 

a) D. MATT BINGHAM, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY SMITH COUNTY; 

b) LOIS ROGERS, DISTRICT CLERK SMITH COUNTY; and, 

c) ABEL ACOSTA, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS. 

b) MAILED DECEMBER 01, 2014: 

1) AFFIDAVIT I ADDENDUM TO 11.07 APPLICATION IN RESPONSE TO: AFFIDAVIT OF STEN MARTI 

LANGSJOEN, to LOIS ROGERS, DISTRICT CLERK SMITH COUNTY; and, 

c) MAILED DECEMBER 14, 2014; 

l)MOTION ORDERING ACCESS TO RECORDS, LOIS ROGERS SMITH COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK. 

G) STATE'S ATTORNEY HAS FILED "STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION 

FOR WRIT OF HABES CORPUS," JANUARY 02, 2015, INTENTIONALLY MAILED TO APPLICANT'S 

OLD ADDRESS OF CHOICE MOORE UNIT, 1700 NORTH FM 87, BONHAM, TEXAS 75418 (SEE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; LETTERS OF NOTICE AT (F)(a)(1)(a); and previous certified 

LETTER FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, NO. 7014 1200 0000 7815 2813, MAILED 

OCTOBER 21 2014) . This was "CLEARLY AN INTENTIONAL ACT TO PRF..TUDICE ANY RESPONSE IN 

A TIMELY MANNER BEPORE COURT RULES ON HABEAS PROCEEDING." APPLICANT RECEIVED THIS 

NOTICE OF STATE'S RESPONSE THE EVENING OF ,"JANUARY 07, 201'1. 

H) TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDP.NCE AS EXPLAINED IN TPC § 37.09 a person is to be proven 

to be in the care, custody, and control (POSSESSION) of said evidence, A BURDEN OF 

PROOF THE STATE WAS UNABLE, NOR HAS ADDRESSED, TO OBTAIN AS SHOWN IN THE DISMISSAL 

OF THE POSSESSION CHARGE AGAINST APPLICANT AS THE ASSUMED EVIDENCE -BAD TO BE OBTAINED 

LAWFULLY, INSTEAD OF PRETEXTED FROM AN ASSUMED TRAFFIC STOP THROUGH ALLEGATIONS OF 

LEAVING AN UNSPECIFIED ASSUMED DRUG AREA. 

3 
IV~ APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF 

APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF is hard to overcome when THE DISTRICT CLERK OF SMITH 

COUNTY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SMITH COUNTY, AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD STEN MARTI 

LANGSJOEN, the participants hereinafter, have entered into an agreement inferred -from 

the concert actions among the participants and to'be considered voluntary from the 

collation of circumstances. See 18 USCA 371; Also, US v THON, 917 F 2d 170, Id. 

APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, STEN MARTI LANGSJOEN, has coincidently, through his affidavit 

given the exa'ct responses needed by DISTRICT ATTORNEY to play down the use of an 

edited from original three (3) tapes their protrayal of the incidental arrest of an 

excessive abuse of officers for a traffic stop. One would think from ATTORNEY LANGSJOEN'S 

lengthy resume at the beginning of his affidavit had he benn affectively considering 

his client, the APPLICANT, he might have chosen some language more in favor to the 

APPLICANT. Instead, he chose to favor a response more in favor of the STATE'S abusive 

actions for edited view of the incident depicted through the manipulated three (3) 

potion DVD from three (3) seperate VIDEOS, two (2) police camera and one (1) PARAMEDIC I 

VIDEO, OMITTING RELEVANT PORTIONS VIABLE TO THE DEFENSE. 

DISTRICT CLERK OF SMITH COUNTY1 has refused to either/ submit to the 24lst TRIAL 

COURT the documentation, stated herein for review and consideration by the court in the 

HABEAS PROCEEDING, nor have they confirmed filing to this APPLICANT, a courtesy extended 

to ATTORNEY'S but not for ANY PRO-SE LITIGANT. 

The DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE has intentionally sent their SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 

TO APPLICANT'S last unit in TDCJ, as they were fully aware that APPLICANT HAD BEEN MOVED. 

THEREFORE, when there is a need to act and failure to act when there is a duty to 

DO SO, IT.IS A RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THIS APPLICANT'S RIGHTS coupled with the knowledge 

of an antic::ipated unjustifiable denial in this HABEAS PROCEEIHNG due to the CONSTITUTIONAL· 

DEPRIVATfONS already incurr.ed in a proc~ss of prosecutorial misconduct, denial of . . 

BRADYMATERIAL, INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND DISTRICT CLERKS FAILURE TO PROPER 

FILINGS TO THE COuRT-., \1ni NOTICE TO FILH~(;S THERE .rs CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT 

TO ESTABLISH A "CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FACTS TO DENY APPLICANT A JUSTIFIABLE .HABEAS 

RULING BY THE COURT UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 

The-facts established from. the record show whether by c::alculated intent and design/ 

or by .their combined error, incompetance, apathy and ignorance, have collectively, 

whether, either through their acts of commission and/or omission, have entered into a 

"CONSPIRACY" to subject APPLICANT to CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS AND ,INJURIES" thereby 

"INFLICTING GRIEVOUS LOSSES OF APPLIC~NT'S PROTECTED LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY 

INTEREST" by and through their blatant violations and lack of requisite process before 

depriving APPLICANT of those interest. 

Their collective acts, as combined in their CONSPIRACY and as utilized in a judicial 

4 I o 
process, that as designed, structured, implemented as currently practiced in their 

oppressive, abusive, and grossly prejudicial application to the APPLICANT is totally 

lacking in even a facsimile of reasonable procedural safegaurds that are CONSTITUTIONALLY 

sufficient to protect against unjustified .depriyation.s of APPLICANT'S fundamental RIGHTS 

AND RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS. 

Their COLLECTIVE ACTS I CONSPIRACY WILL RESULT IN VIOLATIONS THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL 

' 

OF A SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT. Thereby subjecting APPLICANT to the deprivation of his 

fundamental "DUE PROCESS RIGHTS." Resulting in a complete MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE that 

. is inconsistant with fair procedure; to the substantial detriment and injury of the 

APPLICANT. 

V. APPLICANT'S PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, APPLICANT PRAYS the HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT will 

have the SMITH CIUNTY DiSTRICT CLERK produce all documentation submitted by APPLICANT 

listed herein; this HONORABLE COURT JUDGE RULE ON APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION; 

CONSIDER ALL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT IN DETERMINING ANY RULING IN THIS 

HABEAS PROCEEDING; RESCIND ANY ORDERS RULE ON PRIOR TO THIS APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ANSWER I REQUEST IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER; MAKE ALL DOCUMENTAION 

PART OF THE HABEAS RECORD FOR THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISION I RULING; with 

any relief the HONORABLE COURT JUDGE deems in deed and equity, thereby GRANTING 

APPLICANT'S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

SINCERELY" 

MAURICE CAIN #1862514 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Icertify that a trueand.correct copy of APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWE;~ I REQUEST 

IN OPPOSITION ID STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER h~sbeen served by U~S~ MAIL, first class 

postage prepaid, with placement in this TDCJ UNITS LEGAL MAIL RECE:PTICAL, and therefor_e 

under "THE MAILBOX RULE''. to be considered filed this day, addressed 'to: .J 

l) LOIS ROGERS DISTRICT CLERK SMITH COUNTY, 100 N. BROADWAY, RM. 204, TYLER, TEXAS 

75702; and, 

2) D. MATT BINGHAM, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY-SMITH COUNTY,-100 N. BROADWAY, 4th FL., 

TYLER, TEXAS 75702. 

SIGNED AND SUBMITTED THIS /~ DAY OF JANUARY 2015. 

MAURICE CAIN #1862514 

(THIS IS A HAND TYPED COPY DUE TO UNIT REFUSAL TO RUN COPIES,.UNSWORN DECLARATION & 

CLERK'S LETTER OMITTED). 

5 

If/; 
~ '"--i~ \ . ~ ..... J 

·~ 

\~, 

~~·, " 'Z.J 

·~ 

~; ~~ \, 

OFFICE OF· 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT AT1'0RNEY 

SMITH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

TYLER, TEXAS 75702 

~\ 0/ 

: "·'···' .... · .. : <"-,.,-.-·:-··-··------~-·~-

Ill . liB~~ 7014 1200 DODO 7815 2813 

m~ve_c01· 

1tt0# lg (o~SI4 

~ (' 

;.;: .. :i'l':...~ 

.. "'"""'""'~::-----·---·-: 

. ·PITNEY BOWES 

\ 

~"' ';.,';"'" 

~ . ~· 

~ " n" J1 tl."u - ~~~ ~·: 02 ,, v ~~..r.-tO ~e~u~ ooo1375394ocr 21 2o14 

LDLti s C. ~(M) )edge lLri ~t ILlm fM 3 YS r 7580~[1\t i "fi;j.]J~¥Q~JJ••I ;•; I;I;•h';hh'··'·llllll;;·ll;i;ll 
II" II 11 1''''1'1 tl1ll'l II 11ll1 1'd diP 'I 11111'1 1

uiJIIII : ·. 

y/ OFFICE OF 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

SMITH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

TYLER, TEXAS 75702 

i;. 

\)r) 

/ .... 

Maurice Cain, TDCJ-ID # 01862514 0 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice _ 

Choice Moore Unit, 1700 North FM 87 

Bonham, Texas 75418 

F\Nt) TO: 

Powledge .. Unlt 

1400 FM 345'2 

F'alestine. TeXqS 75803 

t\ .·~··· ·. ·.c~-; . .. ,_-~-:··; 

:~~ 

~ ~ 

~. 
l:r, u l'r'''''l' 1 1'/rlr' rl 11 1ll1 1

' d 1 I 11 11 /rll d '1 1ull 11

11 

~ . OFFICEOF 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

SMITH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

TYLER, TEXAS 75702 

~:·. 

{)J 

<b\ .·. / . 

~~:::~e ~~~, TDCJ-ID # 018625 4 0 ·. . .. ·.··.· • · ·. · 

Powledge Unit 

1400 FM 3452 

Palestine, Texas 75803 .•.. 

. / .. 
Abel Acosta, Clerk 

.MAURICE V. CAIN 

1400 FM 3452 ( / 

POWLEDGE UNIT- TDC # 1862514 _ ( 

PALES:riNE, TX 75882 0 . / 0 ' ... 

lE8N38 75882 ,,,,,,, 1111; r•rl•rl·r·lr·r'l ,,,,,,, ...... ,, """"" Hllr·l 1

•

1

•