Certified Document Number: 59805646 - Page 3 of 3

NOTICE OF SEIZURE
INCIDENT NO. 017129114-R
TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HARRIS COUNTY:

The undersigned peace officer, D.G. Davis who is duly employed by the
following Law enforcement agency, Houston Police Department , hereby notifies the
Harris County District Attorney's Office that the below-listed property was seized on or about

the 10th dayof February, 2014 by the Houston Police Department

APPROXIMATELY
$708.60 in U.S. currency

The undersigned peace officer believes that the seized property constitutes the

proceeds of a felony offense and is contraband, as defined by Chapter 59 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure, based upon the following information, obtained in conjunction
. with his own investigation:

Officer obtained the following information from the-above listed incident report: Officer
received information that a male was hanging out of the driver's:door-of a-vehicle that was
parked in the.800 block of Ruth, Harris County, Texas. Officer proceeded to the listed
location and observed William Buford Harrison, who was unresponsive, hanging out of the
driver's door of a 2003 Chevrolet truck. Officer awoke Harrison and noted bulges in'both of
his pants pockets. When asked for permission:to search his pockets, Harrison. advised.
officer that he didn’t have anything. Officer then observed Harrison retrieve a film canister
that contained a plastic:bag from his front right pants pocket. Officer knows that narcotics
traffickers will often use a film canister to store illegal:narcotics for sale/distribution. At this.
time officer removed the plastic bag from the film canister and found it to contain a black
tock:substance. Harrison, who admitted that the black rock substance was‘heroin; was
charged with: Possession Controlled Substance (approximately 10.5 grams of heroin):
Search incident to arrest, officers recovered a quantity of methadone along with $708.60 in
U.S. currency from Harrison's person. Officer also reviewed Harrison's cellular. phone. and
observed numerous incoming narcotics. related text messages that indicate Harrison is
currently involved in the sale/distribution of illegal narcotics.. Harrison's criminal history
includes previous convictions: for Dangerous Drugs and ‘Distribution of Heroin. A narcotics
canine-check of the currency resulted in‘ an alert forthe odor of narcotics. Officer:believes
the currency seized is proceeds gained from illegal:activity and/or intended to be-used for

illegal activity and is contraband-subject to forfeiture.

Pei Officer's Signature

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this ea us af.

A Guo! Aa
Notary Public in and for His U
County, Texas



AND APPLICANT HARRISON CONTENDS THAT HE WAS NOT IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. APPLIC-
ant (CITES AS 607 S.W.2d 507) CRIMINAL LAW 110 K 1942 DEFENSE COUNSEL, AN
ATTORNEY HAS THE PROFESSIONAL DUTY TO PRESENT ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND ARGU-
MENTS IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION TO SUPPORT DEFENSE OF HIS CLIENT U.S.C.A. CONST.
AMENDS. 6, 14: VERNON'S ANN.ST. CONST. ART. 1 § 10. APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES
AS 607 S.W.2d 507 ATTORNEY @ LAW KENNETH DAVID CAGER NEVER FILED ONE PRE-TRIAL
MOTION NOT EVEN A DISCOVERY MOTION. ATTORNEY STATED TO DEFENDANT HARRISON THAT,
THE STATE WILL PROVIDE WHATEVER EVIDENCE I ASK FOR. APPLICANT HARRISON (PRESEN-
TED HIS PRO-SE MOTION TO SUPRESS EVIDENCE FILED’ WITH HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT
CLERK CHRIS DANIEL, BECAUSE ATTORNEY NEVER DID ANY WORK HE NEVER GOT APPLICANT
HARRISON A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING "INFACT" APPLICANT HARRISON NEVER ENTERED
A COURT ROOM UNTIL AFTER APPLICANT HARRISON WROTE THE JUDGE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF 183rd A LETTER DATED SOME FEW DAYS AFTER 10-14-14, Applicant was
set for court on 10-1-14 Attorney did not show, Applicant was reset on 10-
7-14 APPLICANT HARRISON'S ATTORNEY KENNETH D. CAGER did not show up.

APPLICANT HARRISON was reset for 10-14-14 again Attorney did not show
APPLICANT HARRISON was use to calling his mother and telling her to be sure
and call ATTORNEY KENNETH CAGER and tell him to be at court on what ever
date Applicant was set for., and even on the times he showed for court he
was always 2 to 3 hours late and*run back to the court hold oever with A
reset form and give APPLICANT HARRISON some excuse....

So Applicant wrote the JUDGE a letter concerning the whole situation.
THE JUDGE, THE HONORABLE VENESSA VALASQUEZ was aware of what was transacting
in her court roan. The letter was ment as A check to see if ATTORNEY @. LAW
KENNETH CAGER was actually. doing anything besides telling Applicant con't
worry I got your .back' APPLICANT HARRISON was set for court on 11-19-14.
APPLICANT HARRISON filed his Pro-Se Motion to supress the evidence two weeks
prior to that date. Right after Applicant had written the Judge, the only
time DEFENDANT HARRISON ever intered A court room was on 11-19-14, the court
was empty except for court personal. What was stated to DEFENDANT HARRISON
was he was NOT ELLIGIBLE FOR A DRUG PROGRAM, and THE HONORABLE JUDGE OFFERED
DEFENDANT HARRISON (25) years. ATTORNEY and APPLICANT HARRISON sat down to
confer with one another in the court room, DEFENDANT HARRISON told ATTORNEY
@ LAW KENNETH CAGER that (25 years) was out of the question and to set case
for trial. Attorney said that to go to trial, did not look good, and DEFENDANT
HARRISON and ATTORNEY. went back and forth’ in conversation aboout case DEFFEND-
ANT HARRISON talked about SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST and about the RILEY CASE

page 8 of 11



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AS REQUIRED
BY TEX. R. APP. PROC. 73.1(F)

WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON, APPLICANT AND IN _ PRO SE BEFORE

THIS HONORABLE COURT FILES THIS (HIS) “CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE"

IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CAUSE/WRIT PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 11 ARTICLE 11.07, §3. THE APPLI-
CANT. HARRISON, CERTIFIES THAT THE NUMBER OF WORDS IN THIS (HIS)
"MEMORANDUM OF LAW" IS APPROXIMATELY

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS THE |S DAY oF Uwly , 2015.

ad

SA oe

WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON

LESS NUMBER OF WORDS IN THE "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE" AND THE

"CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE".



“DIGITAL DATA STORED ON CELL PHONES DOES NOT PRESENT EITHER CHIMEL RISK":
(2) "A CONCLUSION THAT INSPECTING THE CONTENTS OF AN ARRESTEE'S POCKETS WORKS
NO SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL INTRUSION ON PRIVACY BEYOND THE ARREST ITSELF MAY
MAKE SENSE AS APPLIED TO PHYSICAL ITEMS. But more substantial privacy interes-
ts are’at stake when digital data is envolved. Interest in protecting office-
r's safety did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searchs
of cell phones. data: And:interest ~in preventing destruction of evidence
did not justify dispérising- with warrant’ requirement for searchés of cell
phoness data. The search and the seizure of applicant HARRISON'S CELLULAR
PHONE PHONE (A SMART PHONE) is in violation of Constitutional Laws and has
tainted the evidence (HEROIN SEIZED) that is the basis of conviction in this
cause. SEE: NOTICE OF SEIZURE INCIDENT NO. 017129114-R: Officer D.G. DAVIS
of H.P.D. STATED, SEARCH INCIDENT ARREST," Officers recovered A quantity
of METHADONE along with $708.60 in U.S. Currency from HARRISON'S PERSON
Officer also reviewed HARRISON'S CELLULAR PHONE and observed numberous inc+
oming NARCOTICS RELATED TEXT MESSAGES THAT INDICATE: HARRISON IS CURRENTLY IN-
VOLVED in the SALE/DISTRIBUTION OF ILLEGAL NARCOTICS."

Applicant HARRISON'S contends that the search of his Cellular Phone violat-
ed The FOURTH AMENDMENT because the search had been performed without A war-
rant and was not otherwise justified by exigent circumstances. The FOURTH
AMENDMENT PROVIDES .

The right of the people to be secured in their Persons, Houses, Papers,
and Effects, against Unreasonable Search And Seizures, shall not be violated
and no warrants shall Issue, but upon Probable Cause, Supported By Oath or
Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
Persons or Things to be Seized.

Applicant HARRISON cites SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (MAY 16, 20110
131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d, 865, 79, USLW 4306 KENTUCKY, V. KING, ARREST
Officers may seek Consent-Based encounters if they are Lawfully Present in
the place where the Consensual Encounter Occurs; If consent is freely given,
it makes no diffrence -that an Officer may have approached the Person with
the Hope. or Expectation of obtaining Consent. Applicant HARRISON shows in
Summary Of Facts that H.P.D. Police Officers put applicant HARRISON in Fear
of Bodily Injury by engaging in Threatening Conduct, Badgering applicant HARR-
ISON it is highly probable that any. Confrontation with H.P.D. Police Officers,
by NON Compliance could very well result in (ANY WHERE) From Minor to Serious
Bodily Injury or even Death. These are True Realities in HOUSTON and probably

Page 4 of 5


MR. WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON
TDCJ# 1969618, MICHAEL UNIT
2664 FM 2054
TENNESSEE COLONY, TEXAS 75886
HONORABLE CLERK OF THE: COURT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

RE: EX PARTE WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON
WRIT NO. WR-36,092-04

TR.. CT. NO~ 1417384-A

CAUSE NO. 1417384-A (HABEAS WRIT)
DEAR HONORABLE CLERK OF THE COURT

THE ABOVE-NOTED ACTION HAVING BEEN TRANSMITTED FOR FILE/DOCKET
FOR A DISPOSITION; THE ENCLOSED MEMORANDUM IN THIS HABEAS WRIT/
FILED BEFORE THE COURT FOR DISPOSITION.

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IN THIS MATTER. EXECUTED ON THIS

{.3._pay oF duly » 2015.

RESPECTFULLY,

WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON, Applicant and Certifies that I

have served a copy of this (My)"Memorandum of Law"in Cause No;

1417384-A to the State .on this

The | day of DULY 2015

By Mail as follows:
Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

WILLIAM BUFFORD HARRISON



1.

SUMMARY EVENTS OF FACTS:

DEFENDANT HARRISON went to .the METHADONE clinic located on main street
(exact address unknown) apprpximately (150) feet south of WHEELER @ MAIN.
DEFENDANT HARRISON was A METHADONE Patient and received his dosage of Meth-
adone for that day and his LEGAL takeout issue of Methadone for the rest
of the week, A six (6) day suppl, DEFENDANT HARRISON put all the Methadone
inhisLeft Front Pants Pocket, which caused A BULGE, in the left front pocket
DEFENDANT. HARRISON also had approximately three hundred dollars ($300.00)
in stall bills in the same Left.Front Pants Pocket. The three hundred($300.00)

dollars was Arent payment received from A Vietnam Vet. that is a PANHANDLER
in A wheel chair. "BULGDE IN LEFT FRONT PANTS POCKET." DEFENDANT HARRISON
also placed his bilfold (WALLET) in his Right Front Pants Pocket which
also caused that pocket to BULGE as well. DEFENDANT HARRISON also had A Lea-
ther Jacket (COAT) on, inside the Coat Pocket DEFFENDANT HARRISON had his--
CELLUALR PHONE (A SMART PHONE)...

Leaving the clinic and returning to the parking lot located at the (800) =+
BLOCK of RUTH, "IN MID-TOWN", HARRIS COUNTY, HOUSTON, TEXAS where DEFENDANT,
HARRISON had his (TRUCK) parked. The driver of the Truck who drove DEFENDA-:
NT HARRISON to the Methadone clinic had left the Truck and DEFENDANT HARRI-
SON'S Assumption was that the driver went to the store to get coffee. DEFE-
NDANT HARRISON unlocked his Truck and took his BLOOD PRESURE MEDICATION and
“STOOD OUTSIDE" the Truck drinking his coffe with the driver door open awa-
iting the drivers return after waiting about (20) minutes, driver still’ had
not returned. DEFENDANT HARRISON had made the decision to lock his Truck a-
nd go across the street and take the rail at wheeler station, at that time,
DEFENDANT leaned inside of Truck to gather a few belongings, hat, and teeth
as DEFENDANT HARRISON did this;

An H.P.D. OFFICER stoped in the street and beeped his car horn at that time
DEFENDANT.istood erect, OFFICER said" ARE. YOU OK?" DEFENDANT stated in the--
positive" YES SIR I'M FINE" at that time Officer pulled his car into parkix
ng lot behind. DEFENDANT HARRISON'S 2003 CHEVROLET TRUCK, DEFENDANT had
already’lockéd drive door of Truck and placed keys in pocket and was at
the’ back of Truck when H.P.D. OFFICER began questioning DEFENDANT HARRIS-
ON, H-P.D. OFFICER was formal and wanted to know if DEFENDANT HARRISON
wanted medical assistance, "NO" was DEFENDANT HARRISON'S ANSWER, H.P.D.
OFFICER was surely staling DEFENDANT HARRISON, questioning DEFENDANT HARRI-

Page 1 of 2



I will not take up anymore of the Courts Time with this issue, as I'm sure
THE COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Tis fully aware. It is my hope that I have

not ‘Bored' you or wasted your time... (REFERENCE-HOUSTONCHRONICLE.COM/FALKEN-
BURGGRAND. )

Page 4 of 11



GROUND TWO:
sees FLAWED INDICIMENT BASED ON ‘THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM'S (VIOLATIVE OF DUE

PROCESS OF LAW) UNFAIRNESS.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

Perhaps and stated another way, ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS (Two alleged prior final
felony convictions) PREJUDICED The GRAND JURY'S Hearing and "TRUE-BILL(INDICT-
MENT) issued in this Cause. It is in PLAIN View That ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS
before the GRAND JURY'S Hearing are Prejudiced. Enhancement Paragraphs Prejudic—
ed the Grand Jury's hearing and results in A flawed INDICIMENT for the follow-
ing reasons: (1) and "SHOWS") A "CRIMINAL PICTURE" of Defendants LIFE STATUS:
(2) (and "SHOWS") Defendant's to be A "CRIMINAL IN GENERAL" and (3) are mere
unproven allegations of Defendants Criminal Status. It is beyond doubt that
Defendant was denied the opportunity (DEFENDANT NOR DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY OF
RECORD, are not and was not allowed to be present during the GRAND JURY'S
HEARING and contrary to, the DISTRICT ATTORNEY being allowed to Present allega-
tions of.......) To show objections to the Presentations (VIA way of A PRE-
PREPARED INDICTMENT Presented to the Grand Jury's hearing by the DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE) of the Enhancement Paragraphs at the (HEARING) before
“the Grand Jury. The Enhancement Paragraphs PREJUDICED the GRAND JURY'S hearing
and in A “TRUE-BILL" (INDICIMENT) being issued. FLAWED INDICIMENT~based on
the Grand Jury system's (Violative of Due Process of Law)--UNFAIRNESS.

A PRE-REFRENCE:
Is it not A mockery of the (LAWS of) TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM that The HARRIS
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (OFFICE) is continously making? _
, A CONSTITUTIONALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICE(S)?
Because the (Factual or/and Legal Basis) for the issue(s) Now raised by Appli-
cant HARRISON only became made Public and became ( AWARE OF) avalable to Appli-
cant HARRISON for presentation before the court's as A result of A HOST OF
ARTICLES ON THE ISSUE(S) Published by the HOUSTON CHRONICE/NEWS PAPER) SEE
ALSO: LISA (FALKENBERG@CHRON.COM) over the later part of 2014/or throughout
2014.

This Honorable Court may and should consider the merits of and grant relief
based on this Original Application of HABEAS CORPUS Pursuant to TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ART. 11.07§3.

Page 1 of 11



in many other large cities, and even through applicant Stated "NO"! "IF I'M
NOT UNDER ARREST DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ME", I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING" And
Contrary to INCIDENT NO. 017129114-R made applicant HARRISON remove wallet
and film canister from Right Front Pants Pocketunder Duress (SEARCH INCIDENT
TO ARREST).

Three (3) H.P.D. Officers had defendant HARRISON Surrounded at the back
of his (2003 Chevorlet) Pick-up Truck ALL Three Officers were questioning
HARRISON about his TRUCK (HARRISON ASSUMPTION) The One Officer was checking
TAGS on HARRISON'S Truck for Warrants Etc.,and got A History of Criminal
Back ground from running "Licence" , although HARRISON had only One misde-
weamor on his Rcord since (1992). The Instant Offense took place on Feb.10th
2014, that is some 22 years from this point. OFFICER D.G. DAVIS took HARRISONS
CELLULAR PHONE Right from the start. [When actual search insued] first they
wanted everything out of Left Pants. Pocket, which was about $300.00 Hundred
Dollars and A. (6-days) supply of METHADONE). As soon as H.P.D. Officers saw
contents of Left Front Pants Pocket, they said "JACK-POT", However nothing
was Illegal! NEXT;They made HARRISON Remove everything in Right Front Pocket,
HARRISON complied...out comes car keys, Pocket Knife, Bilfold /Wallet, with
Drivers license, Credit Card, Debt CARD, $400.00 Hundred Dollars, cash monies
and A film canister Solid Black in color with A grey Top, Officer retrieved
and opened it. From the on-set H.P.D. OFFICERS were in total control of
HARRISON and the SEARCH. !

Page 5 of 5



SON with a barage of statements and questions, an investigation stop by
the Officer, conclusion of the investigation stop by the Officer with
DEFENDANT HARRISON'S answer in the positive "I'M O.K. AND FINE." I'm going
to the wheeler station across the street.

4. A second. H.P.D. OFFICER D.G. DAVIS arrived shortly during and after the
conclusion of the first Officer's investigation stop and began questioning
DEFENDANT HARRISON AGAIN RE-STATED his reasons for being at the Truck
in the parking lot. A Third. (3rd) Officer also pulled in, DEFENDANT HARRI-
SON now has three (3) H.P.D. UNITS there! Surrounded by H:P.D: OFFICERS
DEFENDANT HARRISON stated "AM I UNDER ARREST?" "I've done nothing, I have
no warrants, why are you detaining me" at that time a search of HARRISON'S
PERSON ENSUED BY "ALL" ‘THREE (3) H.P.D. OFFICERS DEMANDING, That he emty
his pockets HARRISON had "NO CHOICE IN THE SEARCH"...And complied.

5. This second H.P.D. OFFICER was asking whats in your pockets, Officer's
began to BADGER DEFENDANT about A Search, DEFENDANT HARRISON stated "IF
I AM NOT UNDER ARREST’"NO" "I DON'T HAVE. ANYTHING". D.G. DAVIS Reached
into DEFENDANT HARRISONS Pocket and Removed DEFENDANT HARRISONS CELLULAR
PHONE, he took the SMART PHONE to his Patrol Car he returned about five
minutes later, he had went through SMART PHONE DATA:

6. And stated "YOU HAVE OVER A HUNDRED TEXT MESSAGES FROM PROPLE WANTING
TO BUY MEDICINE FROM YOU!" He went "ALL" through DEFENDANT HARRISONS CELL-
ULAR PHONE A SMART PHONE.

7. H.P.D. OFFICER THEN AND THEREAFTER Searched DEFENDANT HARRISON'S Pockets
and Removed several "ITEMS" and including "CASH MONIES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$708.60 SEE: CAUSE NO.2014-10003 STATE. VS. APPROXIMATELY $708.60 RESPONDENT
WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HARRIS COUNTY AND
HEROIN. allegely weighing more then (4) grams and less then (200) grams)
The Search and Seizure of DEFENDANT HARRISON'S PERSON AND CELLULAR PHONE
(A SMART PHONE) AND:

8. Thereafter and KAYLYNN WILLIFORD ASSISTANT HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
was NOTIFIED of the SEARCH And. SEIZURE conducted of the DEFENDANT HARRTSONS
person and Property approved and Authorized the SEIZURE CONDUCTED of MONIES
and the HEROIN and AUTHORIZED the Arrest of the DEFNEDANT HARRISON.

DONE AND EXECUTED oN THIS _|3 pay or JuLy _ 2018 AND UNDER PENALTY OF

PERJURY. a. °
LD oad Hariaor)
. WILLIAM BUFO! ISON

Page 2 of 2

t



talking about the Rights of Ordinary American Taxpayers. Imagine the I.R.S.
Let A CITIZEN Panel decide who would be Audited, and the ruling party in WASHI-
NGTON currently DEMOCRATES, kept stocking that panel with acorn activists, MSNBC
STAFFERS and MICHAEL MOORE DEVOTEES.

Those accused of CRIMES in TEXAS face the same kind of BIAS., and A small
group of BAD COPS and Unscrupulous PROSECUTORS enjoy A stacked: deck.

Consider this: The Status Quo LED to HARRIS COUNTY GRAND JURORS clearing
every single H.P.D. OFFICER accused in SHOOTINGS for nearly A Decade-288 of
them in A row. JAMES PINKERTON reported last year.

PHILIP HILDER A Former FEDERAL PROSECUTOR for nearly seven (7) years states
that Grand Juries in the FEDERAL SYSTEM aré represented by A CROSS-SECTION
of society as the Law Requires. He states HES. seen everybody from construction
workers to small business owners. He doesn't recall ever seeing A POLICE OFFIC-
er. "I'm not saying the FEDERAL SYSTEM is perfect," HILDER said." But I do
think its A vast Improvement to how the county operates.

TEXAS has its own examples, In BEXAR COUNTY JUDGES have been using the
RANDOM SYSTEM for 15-20 years as the Law allows, according to long time Judge
PAT PRIEST WHO NOW SERVES.AS A visiting Judge Role, recalls that some Judges
switched out of A sense of fairness: "It seemed like it would remove all ques-
tions about whether the GRAND JURY was Assembled Properly if we did it this
other way."

Today, according to STATE DISTRICT JUDGE SID HARLE, BEXAR COUNTY JUDGES, are
given A choice between RANDOM or PICK-A-PAL, also known as the COMMISSIONER
SYSTEM everyone chooses RANDOM, HARLE says in part because its easier.

But in HARRIS COUNTY'S there are those that resist change. HARRIS COUNTY'S
most Senior Felony Court JUDGE MICHAEL McSPADDEN was quoted in The Chronicle
last year saying people chosen through RANDOM SELECTION may not be INTELLIGENT
enough to serve on A GRAND JURY. .

But the AMERICAN . JUDICIAL SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THE COMMON SENSE OF REGULAR
FOLKS.

"I.Q. doesn't. Equate to common sense," says HILDER The Former FEDERAL PROSE-
CUTOR." You have people of HIGH INTELLECT and they may have no common sense, and
you have someone thats not Educated and they have alot of common sense, thats
the beauty of the system."

Page 3 of 11



TO, bel Acosta Chorbe_ RECEIVED IN
Cams of Cotmairal Bppack aaaeane oii
bam Be, : “Abel Acosta, Clerk
Mancrianchum of Fate
J fg L6, O7 (ideas rina CLEMO. as

iit, Log Visas SL, the Cone
Vince cipal 29.6 Lengte.. of tame 8G
Taha. cttse Tent AP tet Lee. Kitcaad AeA _
0atg dang 7. pase TOC tenets dince fare 7
eve Lous, om Agee nt ot He Te
aa Zissen les 2 SesspeLel ZB. Mo [tak
21-2 L Mo bow 2 geek MO. Lega. a fern,
Mo Me/der g exc Cepap (Macsccl [a
sf lacesexedl! 7Ke Sfoleg Onlgenal Ander

os Rasp 1 The: Ties Vine /65°* Coli?

Sincoreby



(6) Did not follow through with the chain of Coustody;

(7) And after applicant HARRISON filed Pro-Se motion to suppress. evidence, the
ATTORNEY DID NOT AND WOULD NOT REQUEST A PRE-TRIAL MOTION HEARING And QUES~
TION (MOTION TO SUPPRESS) THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH And THEREAFTER SEIZURE
OF APPLICANTS CELLULAR PHONE, A (SMART PHONE).

Simpley just would not follow through with one single proceedure except flipp-

ing through the court file. He took Seizure Report NOTICE OF SEIZURE, INDICIME-

NT NO. 017129114-R Report from Applicant HARRISON to make copy and never Retur-

ned it to Applicant HARRISON.

When Applicant HARRISON presented THE UNITED STATES S.Ct. case A unanomus
decision with the whole court concurring on SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 25, 2014 134 S.Ct. 2473 DAVID LEON RILEY, PETITIONER V. CALIFORNIA, UNITED
STATES, PETITIONER V. BRIMA WURIE and told Attorney to 'Familurize' himself
with the case, HE wanted Applicant HARRISON to give him the case. Applicant
HARRISON would not Release case, and instead ATTORNEY KENNETH CAGER took PHOTO
of case with HIS cellephone, in the court holdover behind the (183rd) DISTRICT
COURT IN HARRIS COUNTY.

ATTORNEY KENNETH CAGER told Applicant HARRISON that the state does not
or can not identify person that made report of Applicant needing medical assis-
tance, and stated they are going ‘to have to dismiss the case without witness
they did not have probable cause to even mess with you. Next ATTORNEY KENNETH
CAGER said the state can not prosecute this case they went in your cell phone
without A warrant. (HE) Attorney had state do A PSI for probation, when Appli-
cant ‘spoke with mom on phone, she would say they don't have A case-A probation
for what?

According .to APPLICANT HARRISONS mother she'd say (HE)'S (KENNETH CAGER'S)
going to bring you hone. APPLICANT HARRISON had to assume after some 9-10
months that Attorney said anything to apease APPLICANT HARRISON as long as
Applicants mother kept on paying Attorney ($500:00) Dollars A‘ month’ until the--
fee” of ‘Six: Thousand-’ and . Five‘ Himdred Dollars ($6,500.00): was paid: in full:

APPLICANT HARRISON CITE: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, EN BANC EX
PARTE HARVEY JOSEPH DUFFY JR.. NO.64863 OCT. 1, 1980 (CITE 607 S.W.2d 507)
Defendant who was convicted of CAPITAL MURDER and Assessed the DEATH PENALTY
FILED APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. The 186th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR ‘COUNTY . JAMES E. BARLOW J. DENIED RELIEF and Defendant filed Motion for

Rehearing which was GRANTED. THE* COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CLINTON J. HELD

Page 6 of 11



GROUND FOUR:
INEFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (BEFORE, DURING, AFTER) TRIAL - (PROCEEDINGS) :

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:
It is Applicant's position that counsel's performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms when counsel
failed to object and follow through with objections: (1) Failed to Request
PRE*TRIAL (MOTION) HEARING and Question (PRO-SE MOTION TO SUPPRESS) the valid-
ity of the Search and the thereafter Seizure of Applicants CELL PHONE: (2)
Failed to object and follow through with objections to the INDICTMENT Issued
by the Grand Jury* ALLEGED ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS in the Pre-PREPARED INDICTME-
NI. before the Grand Jury's Hearing prejudiced the GRAND JURY: And (3) The
TEXAS SYSTEM, although CONSTITUTIONAL, the Grand Jury formation is highly Subje-
ctive and Susceptible of abuse (VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW) As applied;
The "KEYeMAN" (DUBBED PICK*A*PAL) System prejudiced the Grand Jury's Hearing.
There is A reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors as stated
above the result of this (BEFORE, DURING, AFTER) Trial (PROCEEDINGS) would
be differant. The Applicant has been DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
BEFORE, DURING, AFTER TRIAL (PROCEEDINGS).

(D) INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE

To be entitled to A New Trial based on an INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Claim, A (DEFENDANT) must show by A perponderance of the evidence that counse-
1's performance was deficient and that the deficientcy prejudiced the defense.
STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052-80 L.Hd.2d 674 (1984)
EX PARTE LANE, 303 S.W.3d 702 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 209).

The first prong requires the (DEFENDANT) to show COUNSELS PERFORMANCE
fell below an objective. standard, of Reasonableness under prevailing professi-
onal norms. STRICKLAND 466 U.S. at 687-88 104 S.Ct. 2052: LANE 303 S.W.3d

at 707. ‘

APPLICANT HARRISON ALLEGES (IN PARTICULAR) THAT
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR:

f1) Failed to Prepare for Trial;

(2) Failed to Interview Witness;

(3) Failed to file even one Pre-Trial Motion;

(4) Failed to ask for an Evidenceuary Hearing;

(5) Did not have the Drug (HEROIN) Annelized and provide applicant with % rep-

ort;

Page 5 of ll



GROUND THREE:
+++++ FLAWED INDICIMENT BASED ON THE GRAND JURY SYATEM'S (VIOLATIVE OF DUE

PROCESS OF LAW) UNFAIRNESS.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:
‘Prosecutors' knowingly. presenting false or Inadmissible Evidence (Violaing
The BRADY RULE of DISCLOSING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE*ETC. ) to Grand Juries to
get INDICIMENTS. Grand Juries are suppose to be According to TEXAS LAW "A
BROAD CROSS*SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY," acting as A check against "OVER ZEALOUS
POLICE And PROSECUTORS" not in HARRIS COUNTY! In practice, TEXAS Grand Juries
do pretty much what ever PROSECUTORS ask them to do! The Grand Juries in HARRIS
COUNTY, are A panel of COPS, (EX-COPS And RETIRED COPS) and PROSECUTORS (EX-
PROSECUTORS And RETIRED PROSECUTORS) .who have served many times before and
it acts as A RUBBER STAMP. HARRIS COUNTY uses the "KEYeMAN" system (Has Been
Dubbed PICK*A*PAL): Judges pick A couple of people to serve as'COMMISSIONERS, '
who then choose from A Pool of People who have VOLUNTEERED FOR GRAND JURY
DUTY. Most people choosen to serve on GRAND JURIES COMMISSIONERS, are or was
employed by. the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. The people who end up serving are
older, Whiter, Wealther and more Conservative then THE GENERAL POPULATION.
A term last for three (3) months and Grand Juries meet twice A week. So Jurors
are often RETIRES with free time. OVER ZEALOUS POLICE And PROSECTORS, GRAND
JURIES do pretty much whatever prosectors ask ("COERCED And ENCOURAGED") them
to do! ....FLAWED INDICIMENT BASED ON THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM'S (VIOLATIVE OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW) UNFAIRNESS.

"We just need to remove any perception that Politics, Favortism or Patronage
plays A role in it." It's to important,' said WHIIMIRE, who chairs the SENATE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE.

Its not A NOVEL CONCEPT. CONGRESS BANNED PICK-A-PAL in FEDERAL COURTS In
1968. Every State except TEXAS has followed suit, with the limited exception
of CALIFORNIA, which uses PICK-A-PAL only in smaller counties for HIGH PROFILE
CASES. Whitmire says HE doesn't yet have REPUBLICAN SUPPORT for thé Bill,
but HE'S "GUARDEDLY OPTIMISTIC" it will win BIPARTISAN BACKING.

REPUBLICAN HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DEVON ANDERSON, for one has
said she'd switch to the RANDOM SYSTEM if she were still A JUDGE.

This issue isn't about Politics. Its about FAIRNESS, pretend that we're

Page 2 of 11


STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF ANDERSON

I, WILLIAM. BUFFORD HARRISON, TDCJ#1969618, BEING PRESENTLY
INCARCERATED IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMMINAL JUSTICE IN
THE MICHAEL UNIT, IN ANDERSON. COUNTY, TEXAS, DO DECLARE UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING. STATEMENT/ ETC. IS TRUE
AND CORRECT. ;

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS THE [pay oF TUly
T

~ p , o
WILLIAM BUFFORD ‘HARRISON

2015.



WARRANTLESS, SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT RILEY'S. (CELL PHONE) CONSTIT-
UTED AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT RILEY'S PROPERTY." A violation
of DEFENDANT RILEY'S FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to be free of
Unwarranted . search and seizure, Id. for further discussion and a broader
scope to the ruling of the Court, SEE also, Summary of Facts attached to
this PLEADING, the. events that are BEFORE and AFTER the SEACH And SEIZURE
By H.P.D. OFFICER D.G. DAVIS OF DEDFENDANT HARRISON'S (CELL*PHONE).

At this point of discussion in this PLEADING, the question now is: AFTER
THE REASON FOR THE STOP HAD BEEN SATISFIED, "WAS THE WARRANTLESS AND NONeCON-
SENT SEARCH AND. SEIZURE. THEREAFTER OF DEFENDANT HARRISON'S CELLe PHONE (THAT
PRODUCED THE PATH TO THE 'FRUIT OF THE OFFENSE' THE FACTS AND INFORMATION
DISCOVERED THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR ADDITIONAL DETENTION AND ADDITIONAL SEARCH
AND SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT HARRISON'S PERSON AND PROPERTY). A VIOLATION OF
DEFENDANT HARRISON'S FOURTH AMENDMENT. RIGHT TO BE FREE OF UNWARRANTED SEARCH
AND. SEIZURE?" Id. DEFENDANT HARRISON RELIES ON "RILEY" SUPRA IN HIS POSITION
TAKEN): and taken even further: "DID OFFICER DAVIS USE THE STOP (AND ONCE,
THE REASON FOR THE STOP HAD BEEN SATISFIED WAS A FISHING EXPEDITION FOR
UNRELATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ACTUALLY USED WHEN H.P.D. OFFICER WENT THROUGH
THE TEXT ON HARRISON'S CELLePHONE? WE RELIGH ON DAVIS SUPRA AT 243 (QUOTING
OHIO V. ROBINETTE SUPRA).

Additional facts and information discoverd by an officer during A Lawful
Detention may form the basis for A reasonable suspicion that another offense
has been or is being committed, U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV RICHARDSON V. STATE
399 S.W.3d 697 TEX.APP. FORT WORTH’ 2013 TO THE CONTRARY, and as in this case
(.....CONCLUDES THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDUCT THAT INITIATED THE STOP...)
A fishing expedition? ONCE THE REASON FOR THE STOP HAS BEEN SATISFIED (...."
A_- FISHING EXPEDITION FOR. UNRELATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY" OCCURRED) OFFICER DAVIS
SEARCH OF DEFENDANT HARRISON'S. CELLePHONE (A SMART PHONE) AND THE SEIZURE
Of. HEROIN from Defendant HARRISON'S person thereafter occurred without A

WARRANT. The search and seizure in this case was without A Warrant and viola-
tive of Defendant HARRISON'S FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST UNWARRANTED
SEARCH AND SEIZURE. A Defendant satisfies this burden of producing Evidence
that rebuts the presumption of Proper Police Conduct by establishing that,
A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OCCURRED WITHOUT A WARRANT. Id U.S. CONST. AMEND.IV Appl-
icant HARRISON CITES 134 S.Ct. 2473 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (June 25, 2014) SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, DAVID LEON RILEY, PETITIONER V. CALIFORNIA UNITED
STATES, . PETITIONER V. BRIMA WURIE APPLICANT HARRISON, his ground one (1)

Page 3 of 5


and how the H-P.D. Violated his FOURTH AMENDMENT by going through the DATA
on DEFENDANTS SMART. PHONE. ATTORNEY KENNETH CAGER said they (H.P.D.) are
going to say they found the DOPE FIRST, at that point APPLICANT HARRISON
knew Attorney had not even looked at THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN DAVID
LEON RILEY V. CALIFORNIA.

Attorney wanted to plead the case, APPLICANT HARRISON was Beat and Subsi-
quently did plead for (15) years after realizing, ATTORNEY @ LAW, KENNETH
CAGER thad no intentions of doing any work required by an Attorney, every
DEFENSE DEFENDANT HARRISON expounded upon, ATTORNEY @ LAW KENNETH DAVID CAGER
would shoot holes through. Applicant's mother who was on A fixed income
could not afford to pay one more penny, is it not a TRAVISITY oF JUSTICE
the way the Court's are set up, to beat A DEFENDANT down PSYCHOLOGICALLY
and EXTRACT A PLEA, and tell DEFENDANT he got a good deal? The Attorney's
are so use to pleading a Defendant out, that A big portion of them have become
ACCUSSTOM to living off the system without ever having to actually DEFEND
A client that paid for A Defense in open court. APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES
AS: 607 S.W.2d 507) page 9 [3] as the court noted in EX PARTE GROVES, SUPRA,
SUCH JUDICIALLY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS "ARE NOT ABSOLUTE" AND HABEAS CORPUS
IS IN THE PROPER FORUM FOR ONE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED OF HIS. LIBERTY WHO Is
WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES: LAWSON V. STATE,
467 S.W.2d 486 (TEXA. AS, CR. APP. !(&!) and Continuing to EX PARTE EWING’
570, S.W.2d 941 (TEX. CR. APP. 1978) The court looked for willfull misconduct
by retained counsel without the knowledge of the client that amounts toA
BREACH OF THE LEGAL DUTY OF AN ATTORNEY [FN 11] SEE: E.G., HOWELLY V. STATE
563 S.W.2d 933-937 (TEX. CR. APP. 1978) * 514 HARRISON V. STATE 552 S.W.2a
151, 152 (TEX.CR.. APP. 1977) [FN 12] HUNNICUTT V. STATE 531 S.W.2d 618-626
(TEX. CR. APP. 1976) : (CITE AS-607 S.W.2a 507) TO RECAPITULATE AFTER EX
PARTE EWING, SUPRA, THREE SEPERATE SOURCES OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL
COUNSEL HAD BEEN DISCOVERED. *ONE, DUE PROCESSS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMEN-
DMENT,’ UNADULTERATED, REQUIRES REPRESENTATION THAT ATTAINS THE LEVEL OF FUND-
DAMENTAL. FAIRNESS FROM. BOTH APPOINTED AND RETAINED COUNSEL. *TWO, THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT -INCORPORATED INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DEMANDS "REASONABAL~
LY EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE" FROM APPOINTED COUNSEL AND FROM RETAINED COUNSEL
WHEN REQUISITE STATE ACTION OBTAINS [FN 14].

[FN 14] Fully states, THE TEST FOR EFFECTIVE COUNSEL IS "COUNSEL REASONABA~
LLY LIKELY TO RENDER AND RENDERING REASONABALLY EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE" Mc
KENNA V. ELLIS, 280 £.2d 592 (5 CIR. 1961) as Quoted approvingly by the court

Page 9 of 11



V. ESTELLE 491 F.2d 125, 128, (5 CIR.1974); CARAWAY V. BETO, 421 F.2d 636,
637 (5 CIR. 1970); WILLIAMS V. BETO 345 F.2d 698, 705, (5 CIR. 1965); In The--
Seminal Decision of POWELL V. ALABAMA 287 U.S.45, 53, S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed.
158 (1932), THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT A THROUGH FACTUAL INVESTIGATION
IS THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS BUILT.

Page 11 of 11


3.
Applicant HARRISON is a Lay-Person and is unlettered in the study of the
Law. Applicant HARRISON should not be held to the same Stringent Standard
as that of an Educated Counsel, HAINS V. KERNER U.S. (1972) Appli-

cant HARRISON respectfully urges This HONORABLE COURT to construe This MEMORA-
NDUM LIBERALLY and in The INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Id.
APPLICANT HARRISON SHOWS OPPOSITION AS FOLLOWS:
A.

Applicant cotends that the Fruit (and Namely HEROIN) seized during the
search of applicant occurred without a WARRANT, an unreasonable search and
seizure (Occurred) without a Warrant.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT protects against unreasonable search and seizures
by government officials, U.S. CONST. AMEND IV; WIEDE V. STATE 214 S.W.3d
17.24 (TEX. CRIM APP. 2007) An alleged FOURTH AMENDMENT Violation,
The applicant bears the Initial burden of: producing evidence that rebuts
the Presumption of proper Police Conduct. AMADOR V. STATE: 221 S.W.3d 666.672
(TEX CRIM APP 2007) SEE YOUNG V. STATE 283 S.W. 3rd 854.872 TEX.CRIM.APP. )
cert. DENIED 558 U.S. 1093, 130 S.Ct. 1015, 175 LED.2d 622 (2009). An applic—
ant satisfies. this burden by establishing that a search or seizure occurred
without a warrant. AMADOR V. STATE 211 S.W.3rd at 672 once the applicant
has made this showing, the burden of proof shifts to the STATE, which is
then required to establish that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant
to a warrant or was reasonable, ID. at 672-73; TORRES V. STATE 182 S.W.3rd
899.902 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 2005); FORD V. STATE 158 S.W.3d 488.492 (TEX.CRIM.APP.
2005) an INVESTIGATIVE . DETENTION must be temporary and the questioning must
last no longer than is necessary to Effectuate the purpose of the stop.
FLORIDA V. ROYER. 460 U.S. 491.500 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325 75 LED.2d 229 (1983);
BALENTINE V. STATE 71 S.W.3d 763, 770-71 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 2002); DAVIS V. STATE
947 S.W.2d 240, 246 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1997). Once an officer concludes the inves-
tigation of the conduct that initiated the stop. Once the reason for the
stop may not be used as a FISHING EXPEDITION for “UNRELATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"
Id. (947 S.W.2d) at 243 QUOTING .OHIO Vv. ROBINETTE 519 U.S. 33.41,117 S.Ct.
417, 422, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) GINSBURG J. {ONCURRING).

* * *

In the case of DAVID LEON RILEY V. CALIFORNIA U.S. 134 S.Ct. 2473 189
L.Ed.2d 430 (JUNE 25, 2014) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Held: That THE

Page 2 of 5


CAUSE NUMBER: 1417384 § 183RD DISTRICT COURT
§ oF
§ HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
EX PARTE, s
WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON § *\ TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
: § AT
§ AUSTIN TEXAS

WRIT NO: 36 OF (6) q

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON APPLICANT and submits this (HIS) "MEMORA-
NDUM_OF LAW", In the above styled and Numbered Cause/Writ and before This
Honorable Court. .

Applicant HARRISON will show This Honorable Court as follows:

1.
Applicant HARRISON file this (His) HABEAS Writ Pursuant to the provisions
of Vernon's Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter 11 Article 11.07.

2.

An Evidentiary hearing is warranted: Applicant HARRISON respectfully urges
This HONORABLE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS to ORDER The 183RD DISTRICT
COURT, OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS to Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing in this
CAUSE/WRIT (SEE: Article 11.07; That: a complete record of the Evidentiary
Hearing be made and Transmitted (SAME) to This HONORABLE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMI-
NAL APPEALS.

SUPPORTING ORIGINAL HABEAS WRIT NOW BEFORE THIS
: HONORABLE COURT:

, SPECIAL PLEADING
The "STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER" . and the STATES proposed findings of fact
conclusions of law and ordér, (and adopted by the trial COURT and before
This HONORABLE COURT.) Is nothing more than a mere "STANDARD FORM" that.is
is used Daily by the HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S (OFFICE) in HABEAS
WRITS and that fails to address the Applicant HARRISONS HABEAS WRIT.

Page 1 of 5


THAT DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL NECESSITATING
THAT CONVICTION AND ASSESSMENT OF DEATH PENALTY BE SET ASIDE.

The Second Prong:

(2) Failure to object to the validity of the INDICTMENT issued by THE HARRIS

COUNTY GRAND JURY . for said Reasons:

(A) Two enhancement Paragraphs of pre-pared INDICTMENT that prejudiced the
GRAND JURRY'S HEARING:

(B) Two enhancement Paragraphs of the pre-pared INDICIMENT were mere unproven
Allegations that prejudiced the GRAND JURY'S HEARING and A Violation of
DUE PROCESS OF ‘LAW;

(C) Two enhancement Paragraphs of A pre-pared INDICIMENT before the GRAND
JURY'S HEARING were (PERVASIVE AND INFLAMMATORY) PREJUDICED. APPLICANT
HARRISON farther says that COUNSEL was INEFFECTIVE for failure to INVESTI-
gate and OBJECT to the HARRIS COUNTY GRAND JURY based on the TEXAS SYSTEM

GRAND JURY IS:

(D) A FLAWED INDICTMENT and that THE "KEY-MAN" SYSTEM DUBBED ("PICK*Ae PAL")
Is "HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE" and SUBSECPTABLE of Abuse Applied and;

(E) A FLAWED INDICTMENT issued by A GRAND JURY under the ("KEY*MAN") SYSTEM
overzealous Prosecutors:Judges appointing Law Enforcement friendly. people
to ACT AS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS FILLING GRAND JURIES WITH COUNTRY

CLUB PALS.
Active duty Cops and Ex-Cops, active Prosecutors and Ex-Prosecutors and mostly
WHITE ELITES is Prejudiced, and Violative of DUE PROCESS.

Applicant HARRISON Relies on COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, EN BANC.
EX PARTE HARVEY JOSEPH DUFFY JR. NO. 64863 OCT. 1, 1980 (CITE: as 607 S.W.2d
507) [5] CRIMINAL LAW 110 KEY 1891 K Preparation for trial most cited cases
(Formally 110K 641.13(1) Trial Counsel in A Criminal preosecution is charged
with making INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF FACTS OF CASE ESCHEWING WHOLESALE
RELIANCE INVERSITY OF HIS CLIENTS VERSION OF THE FACTS.

I cites-110K 1923 K INVESTIGATING, LOCATING, AND INTERVIEWING WITNESSES.
(FORMALLY 110K 642.13(6) TRIAL COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION HAS RESPONSIBI-
LITY°TO SEEK OUT AND INTERVIEW POTENTIAL WITNESSES AND FAILURE TO DO SO IS
TO BE INEFFECTIVE , IF NOT INCOMPETENT WHERE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT ONLY VIABLE
DEFENSE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCUSED IS NOT ADVANCED,‘ U.S.C.A. CONST. AMEND ..6;-APPLI—
CANT HARRISON ALLEGES ATTORNEY KENNETH DAVID CAGER never did talk to Witnesses
(PERSON. WHO NOTIFIED POLICE OF APPLICANT HARRISON SUPOSEDLY NEEDING ASSISTANCE),

Page 7 of ll



in in CARAWAY V. STATE 417 S.W.2d 159, 162 (TEX.CR. APP. 1967).

* Three, A LEGAL DUTY AN ATTORNEY OWES TO HIS CLIENT IS NOT TO BE BREACHED
BY RETAINED COUNSEL NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, AN APPOINTED COUNSEL. APPLICANT
HARRISON CITES: CUYLER V. SULLIVAN, SUPRA, PUT AN END TO THE "DOUBLE STANDARD"
EMANTING FROM THE RETAINED-APPOINTED DICHOTOMY, AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
POWELL THE RATIONALE IS VIZ; SEE Id. AT _U.S._.100 S.Ct. AT 1716, CITED
FROM (607 S.W.2d 507).

APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES 607 S.W.2d 507) * 515, WE MAY ASSUME WITH CONFI-
DENCE ‘THAT MOST COUNSEL WHETHER RETAINED OR APPOINTED WILL PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF AN ACCUSED, BUT EXPERIENCE TEACHES THAT, IN SOME CASES, RETAINED COUNSEL
WILL, NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE. REPRESENTATION. *516 APPLICANT HARRISON CITES CUYER
V. SULLIVAN SUPRA: THE VITAL GUARANTEE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WOULD STAND
FOR LITTLE IF THE OFTEN . UNINFORMED DECISION TO RETAIN A PARTICULAR LAWYER
COULD REDUCE OR FORFEIT THE DEFENDANT'S ENTITLMENT, TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECT-
ION.

APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES AS: 607 S.W.2d 507) [4] EX PARTE EWING, SUPRA
IS BARELY TWO YEARS .OLD’ AND CUYLER V. SULLIVAN SUPRA, NOT EVEN A TODDLER.
UNTIL FURTHER EXPERIENCE TEACHES OTHERWISE WE WILL APPLY HERE AND CONTINUE
TO USE THE STANDARD OF "REASONABALLY EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL," TO
TEST ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION AFFORDED AN ACCUSED BY RETAINED AS WELL AS
APPOINTED COUNSEL WHEN THE PERFORMANCE IS TO BE JUDGED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT-ALSO BY OUR OWN "RIGHT TO BE HEARD" PROVISION OF ARTICLE 1 SECTION
10, BILL OF RIGHTS, CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS [FN 17].

[FN 17], THE “REASONABLE COMPETENCE" TEST PROPOSED BY OUR BROTHER ROBERTS
LACKS. APPEAL. AT . THIS TIME FOR THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUPREME COURT WAS SPOKEN
IN A CONTEXT OF ADVICE OF COUNSEL THAT HIS CLIENT ENTER A GUILITY PLEA. OUR
CONCERN HERE IS WITH A BROADER COURSE OF CONDUCT THAN COUNSELING A PLEA:
WE MUST JUDGE A FULL SCOPE. OF ASSISTANCE-REPRESENTATION, PERFORMANCE, DELIVERY
FOR EFFECTIVENESS RATHER THAN ADEQUACY OF ABILITY -OR CAPACITY TO ADVISE.
THE STANDARD. WE RETAIN MANDATES AN EXAMINATION BOTH .OF COMPETENCE, "LIKELY
TO RENDER," AND OF ASSISTANCE, "AND RENDERING" IN DETERMINING EFFECTIVENESS
OF COUNSEL. ;

A Criminal Defense Lawyer must. have firm command of the facts of the case
as well as Governing Law before he can Render Reasonabally effective assist-
ance to his client-in or out of the court room FLORES V. STATE 576 S.W.2d
632, 634 (TEX. CR. APP. 1978); EX PARTE EWING, SUPRA AT 947; SEE ALSO HERRING

Page 10 of 11