CERTIFICATE OF SteutcEe

“This js +0 Certify tha+ GAtrue and Correct
Copy here of Loas Serve Upon Kelley Crisp,
Counsel for the Stake Of Teas , qt +he Bouye
County Distr ot PtHtorney SS Office 601 Main Shee},
“Texarkana, Texas ,1SSO) on $hi's the 134 fay

of July Qos

Bonnie Aprsen fr.
Benne Tarnson “Sr.
Appel lant Mo Se

L, Bennie Tnason Sr. TOS 199053,
being, Presently incarcerated in the Mark iy,
ShleS Unit of the Teas Department of-
Criminal Sushi in Beaumont Beas , Jehferssn

i revas, Uerv Gnd declare under enal 4
OF pe . p cred

true andl Correct. JG

Crecuted on this BY day of Diy 201s,

7,


Drscussion
Appellant asserts thot the evidendh presented
Rdtablishes a reasmnable doubt. “The esr mony
OF two of the State's uoitnesses agree that
the physial and medial evidence js incmsistan
Or doesn'+ Support the act of mape. Also and

Most Signi Ficanty _+he lab teahnifion for the.

ae Department of Rubio Safety / Kristy Nak,
ICentified an Unknown DUA Speaimen within
the rope Ki

_ Mb OF domplainant and no-one of He
&epert orhnesses Pub on by the Stat Gould make
ON L&XACH Lime frame. esti

made udshen ether DONA
SPRIMEN he Unknown

or from fhe appellant,
Was deposited. The Onty Conclusion was ituas
vorthin a five (5) d

ervud. The presence Of
He Unknown DUA in Thee Creates Q reasomble

Aoublt and the fact that 1+ went untksted 46
Solidi fy the aase , prejudice the appellant, Therefere,

this Cage should be remandeal back fo the
Court for a new trial.

10.


STAVE MENT OFTHE CASE

This is On appeal from a& danvietion for Aggrmeded
Sexual Assaukk in violation of —Ryxas Penal Code section
22.021 a Piest aegree Felony rin teat court Number
IQ FO821-102 and Appeal number Obl-I4-00174-C2z ,
(C.R. 0b-1-c01gY ~ a2 p93. 78). A jury found Johnson
Quilts and assessed a punishment of li®. (C2. o6-
IU- 001M -CR pg. 18),

TISSUE PRESENTED
Hssue One + “The Evraanet is —nsufficen+ Fo

Support “The Convictisn of Aggravated Sexual
Assault.

Issue Two: Counse/ Mendered Ineffechve Assistinee

By Failing. Te Pride Proper Tre! Statergy by
Openings, tA Deor foe Sxhauneous OFFense .

Tssre THRe ? Counsel Rendered —neflective Qsisfaner

By Failing. fo En vestigate A lernatave DNA,
STATEMENT oF E4e-Ts

Ais stared above, Appellant was indicted in Cause lb.

IDFO&21-102. for the Rony offense of Asgraveted!
Sexual Fssaut CTeKAS Penal Code §22.021)

On opening. statements, Mr, Stroud , Attorney
For appellant , S'Ve5 @ Preview of the defense th
that the appellant and the CompRina n+ engigsol
tN Consensual Sex”, CLR Vl. ¥ : ISI)

During. open Court, outsiale

. or, The presence of te

JI Mr Shroud asked He Taclge do admonish
LL,


Dieussion

Counsel elicted or opened He door to evidence
tak set is Client Up for impeach ment by +he
State And CAorrage & ppellantis Creat brirtes with
So Biven pre in heren+ Prejudicral” nature

oF the QLhran |
App llant's Sk OFRNSES Anol the fact phat

efoeps dakinse rested almost entirely on his
Crediibi lity, the Could have been no remorable

HO Sheadegu, Ayr Appellants Counsel fo elicit
Gnd open +the door to the Similiar Odrenecus

Ses. See Robertson u. State 187 Sid, 20 YAS ds

7
Be (Te, Crim, App. 2.006 )/ also loi lliams Uv. Stak bo S.0-2,
344, 346 C-Rey, Crim. App 1983) Ths is porticulart
true cohtn as here dw doBnse strategy Uda s/ faxed

nogteely on the defendants Cred tbr lite Verses phe
OM Dlarnant’s Credibi)itg , Opening. the door Undirmines
the deGnse Strategy ANd Serves No Purpase othen

to Prejudica She clefendlanky abrity i“)
Present hy3 dekase .

For this Case shoulal be remandeol baek
to the Court fr @ new dal.

} 1,


Summary oF THE ARGUMENT

ulA his fies} Pssue, Aopellan+ arques tat the eurenen
Produce ot tne guilt/innecence Phare was INSUFF Cent
to support the verdict of gu oA pellant reaches
Conclusior IN Part by the lack of medica) evidence
Suppoching the Crime Charged. “The testimony from
the medical expert Shoos “there’S No Sign of the
Alleged Crime and in fact according. to that Same,

expert, there uss an unidenhfied2 DNA tat Was
profided found Within the nape Kit performed on

om plainany, Alse , according. to the medical expert,
te DNA found vothin the rope Kit Could have been
residual Aeposite from up to five days ele. Therefye,
he evidence Predued could east a Shodow of a
Coub+ and therefare is insuthietent .

~<Qn his second and thirl jsare °
that the trial counsel ves eppoie pe nt a “es
because he farled to Previde a Preper trro\ strode

The counsel adursecl the appellant of the cleen
of Consensual sexand told Appellant that he uoould
have fo 4estify in front of the jury if that
defense was +o be presented, The Stee filed a pre-ta|
Motion to present exhaneous offenses and tw dlefense
Gounse\ shill adursecd tho Appellant to fake phe
Loitness Sherd knowing that rt uoeld open +2 dloor
forr the Admission of Phe eybaneous ofnseS . The Court
CVeN , On recodd aclmonishes Counsel thaf his Cross-
examination ofa Stakes Loltness elicted responses
that openecl the door +o eganeous offenses. Therefae
4+ria\ Goanse| Should have the knowledge. fo Know ther
the elitted examination Coupld with defendant

testimony weula open the acar to the ettraneons
Offenses and would Constitute jneffeativeness on is pat.


A. Correct, There's astning. visible .
Q. Oko »And +hatis @& multiple Oe packet
; imnaton °
veohich 1S prePared in a rape Kit Sam on %
A. yes CRR Vol¥ {102,103

BAnd of course, the examination, the pelvic exatination
of Ms. People reveals +o the healthcare Professiore.|
Qersthins. iS Normal 2

A VeS (0.0. Yel S110)

Q. Ard as far as any other physical evidine Corroborating.

- Feople Considers i449 be forcible Ger)
SUCh AS On Evidence of j

Pye or Any thins Ing

" meciaay report Supportive of fi Contetion? tagt

i+ was forcible intercourse , you will admit +o me
there is none 2

A, There is No physical envi

dence of that, no.
Qa. Any Place, that there.

COAG possibly be physicr|
EVidence in the Medical reports ty Correborate

Be ee Oe IS SBying that bhe uns. phe urehin,
OF force Intercourse | that that is not presen +
"Y the medi ea PEPOPES (NO. C22. ol! 110,111)

Spencer Price
SP Rn cen Pri
technician

19) He tool Hoo Swabs from

3.


appellant of his naht +o testify - Ase. Aad monishing, ot
ripnts ; the Following, tosk plage *

“The Qourt +s pet me ask dns, John * What been.

You Odvice +e the defendont in tars Case. as to Whether
Or not he shoud testify Or not 2

Mr. Stroud ‘ Your Honor

» woith +he Aefense , you know,
Bennie Position

Moroushout his whole Gise is phat Yhis
WAS A consensual Act, And Tye fold him ,voell (fits

a CON sensu | Qot | Youre GONNS, +o Wave fo Communicate

tat ts the Bry E+ would either be thrash his Sdetement
to +he pslter oe looking. them

fo present Spat deknse , the ony
Possible Way te do i} Js Hirsh his Festimens here.
1s thet Corread Bene. 2

THE DEFENDANT + Yes sin ,

THE COugt ? Bennie, is that PreHy well vohat he's Piel

THE DEFENONNT’ Yes Si2 . CRR Ie 1608 [49 )

“Baan THAGKER

“Detective —thacke- teshified +het he came in) Oonctact
towh +the APReMant enol dbtar'n

Darnane statues -

Daphane Stiles testified on crass eam nahn

As fellows + Q. As fer as the med iar\ Me@ral$ | Youve
testified there's Nothing. in there indi cat)

Phat “ars
injuries are und on Wis. Lommekia Peoples ic Mae Orrem?


Con@LUSIbN AND PRAYER

Where fre, Premises Considered , tha Appellant
Pequests the Court to reverse the Canuichbn
OF the Appellant on the basis of the errors
Steded and remand Huw case for anew 4fnal.

ay
i

“ Respeahfelly Suubmefle
Bennie hager va

Bennre hn yon
Appellant, flo Se
TOCS No. 19°700S5-2,

Mark uo. Shes Unt
BOLO FM 35714.

Beaumont Ras
TI 0S~

18.


A. could be sin cellS but tHe Vagina |

Vault Grea breaks down skin cells Much more
qa than i+ does sprem alls . So potentialt
(t Gould be Skin cells . Nore Iikely it prokably
Came ftom Sprem (@.2. Vol. 81135)

“Recross - Exami Nation

Q, Maan ‘ : /
Yeu Can “+ woth any Certainty
UG)

hen +he sperm ce}| fake, Gor an un known

i Ndividual come.
to be j
ce Ms, fople , Can You 217 Phe Uagina\ Area

A. No » cant .
Q. And so nothing from that testing tells

wohen Hut was place ere 2 Yeu Kno
i+ wes tere 2

A. Yeoh ask that 1+ was probably vathia
Five clays:

Q. “Et might rave been a7 hour ¢

A. Correct, CRE. Wl. &! 136 )


FILED IN

‘The Court of Appeats
Sixth District
rie Gout a Apgeaa aa No. Ole-('4+--00 sa4¢-Ce JUL 16 2015:
JUL 1 8 2015 SIN WHE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

_ Texarkana, Texas

ay “TRxarkang 7Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Texarkana, Texas \ +

Cobra Autrey, Clerk

Dbennie Johnson repellant

NS.

“The STATE OF “TEXAS Appel lee,

eal from te Distnct Court of
Ape Beusie, Counrny : TEXAS
1029 FJudicial Distner

Appellant's Pre Se Bret

Pennie Uthraen Gr.
Appellant Pro Se
TOE No. 1FI00SS
Mark UO: Stles
p00 FM 3s

Beaumont jTexas
70S



LTssue %h
THE EVIDENCE “ES CNSUFRICENT “TO SUPPORT

TAG CONNECTION OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

Koptallant first asserts tat He evidance 1S
Insufficient +o Support he Bedings of guilty
of AAD ravoted Sexual assault . Téstimon fiom
Severe of phe State's winess agree there.
Loas NO Physical or medical evidence to eu”
Suggest the find ins, OF aggravated Sexual asscuttt.

Facts ¢
The FeSH meng ef Daphane shies , hon gucririnedl
by defense attecney ' oniings to ight that +Here
Was no physial nor medial injurves hat suggest a
Seyua\ assault occured, (0b. UI 8 1 (02,103, 157 NOU
“Theres no medical reports even doaumented
that shows any tama 4o+he Compliantants genesela.
(RR. Vol.&, * Ho)
The festimeony of kristy Link ,;vwoho woorks as
an teahnition at> the “Tees Department of- fublre
Safe who tested the vape kit for DONA alone,
wh Appellant . revel that there was @ Phirdl
Dua Specimen fom an un Known Person Peeovered!
from the CoM pliant's va4 na | Ond anal Smear
Slide, (2.12. Vol. 81131)

Mo other Profle woas reaieved to fest agaast
+he untnown DOA Specimen . (2,2, Uol.7 '/32.)

Krist Link also ested that DNA In He farm
“prem Gould reside in tre VE irq) vaale up to
ive clays and that +e unknosn profile would more.
Probably’ to be sprem., (22, Uol- €1134, (3-)



Counsel also usas ineffective, for te inal lity to
Conduct on have the Unknown ONA within tre
Complainants rape kre ested to ident fy the
Indliviclual, The teshna, of that DNA Yoas
Tantamont to the case and the lack of doing.
So Caused the drial dounse| to be /nefechue,


Kristy Link “Lign
at Mink testified tnat sne 1s o ieee Crime
wi e Texas Department of Publie ty

ey e
Laboratory . (2.12. Uol.¥: 121) She testifies phat a .
recieved the cape KY from aomplainant ; the on
. From appellant and a condom - Which turned

; : A
+o be Unrelated to the case . (2i2,Usl.% ie omen
Prelinainany, test revealeck the presence of S

ory the Uaginal SMear And anal Smear slide. (Re,volg:128)

Futher tests revea\ Mar the sprem tested was
Consistent witty a@ miyture fom appellant , He compleinants

ancl an un kpnewn- inolrvidual , CR, Vol. ¥ 3131) And
She further iS Askeel by prosecution

Qi And You Aid not recreve q DNA Profile or

No Sam pie from her FOAL or an other
third Person +o make A Comparisn , dorrect 2
A. No, we Od not, CR. U01.§- 132)

Cross - Examination

Q. And how long. would the DNA oF & Sprem
Cell Fraction be Abie Jo be recovered and testes

A. ~Typicalt L352 Can SHI try te develope @
Profile whiny frye lays GPR Shual i ntercourse.

C@i0, Vol. g 134 )

Rea ret Byam radhion

Q. So this Un Known profile , is phat Nee iy
PFE FOF Gould Thalso be came other eyppe
oF Sivloey CV wnaterval 2

4,


TTNOEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: PAGE

Bone v. State.
11S-W. Bd $27 (RX, Crim. App. 2002 ) 13

Broon v. Stee 4

231 S.0. 3d 565, 593 CRY App. - Eastland 2012;A4 pet )
Denton v. Stote
FU Sud. AA 338-390 CTR. Crim, App. 199°) 4

“Jackson v. Virgin , q
443 U.S. 307,319; 99 S.C. 2991; bI L, Ed, 2d sto (/977)

Mitehell Vv Stale
bY S.w. BA YO, bY2. (TX Crim. App . 200%) *F

Poberton vu. Stale

187 Sud. Bd 415) e486 CTRICr’m . App. 200% ) 4

Strickland v. Washington
4e6 US. , CCS) lo $.ct, 208A; Yo L.Ed 2d wa4l/964)

Trhbs v. Florido q
UST U.S, BI, 40-4 102 S.C#, DN 20.6. ad bs2 (1982)

Wriliams uv Stee

boa S.w. ad 344,346 OTe, Crim. App. 1993 ) 44
STA TUES
“Texas Penal Code Sechon 22.021 L


Tssue #2 43

Counse PEwdeERER ZLNEFFECTVE ASSESTAMCE
BY FATLZNG To PROUTOE A PROPER TeTAL SRATERK

AND By FALLING TO “CNUESTIGATE THE ALEEDATEVE
DONA ,

2\lonr next asserts that his tral Counse)
LOS Whelreahive. for pursuing @ tra strategy 19
LohICh A\laved the presecutH o> tO off up evidlence
OF extraneous Offenses anol Sane Counsel feuled
to Invest gateon and have +he “Uniram” DONA

teSted Qnd compared Qoaarns} +he Complainants
Stedement, ) P

FACTS:

. On September 10, 2014 a hearing, was helel
IN Ldhich tne State file Q Notice’ of Tnkrt to
USE e¥tiineouUs OfMenSeES Qccording fo Lule Yo of
the Teas Rules of Evidence , DEring Uorrdire
meceecling s CUtSIt +e presenae of the jury,
Counsel Fok ce-Rendant makes Q verbal jection “to

the admission of the USIAX of yhe eH inedus
offenses . (Ri, Vol. 1°59) The CSurt Wolds camsel

Ob\echion Perabinaead Motion volth thy notion
that tre door isnt Opened and even aduisSes
Counsel +6 Stay Away from Hut, (BR.Ud.1 4.10)

Durnin: +a dFestimony oF Daphne Sh leg n
reo ete ) Wr Stroud ; Gounsel elictool
Fonees at Opened the door for use of fhe

‘extraneous Offenses (2.2, Vol.grito) ARler the



STANDARD OF REUFEL

“The Standard of reviews for ineffective assistanag
of Counsel is Se+-foHth ww Strick] 1A_V. : /
166 US. Wo, 104. SCH 20SA YO Lead. zal GUL C99¢ard
Bone vu. Stake, 17 Std. 2d gag CBR: Cri. Ppp . 2.002)
“To preva Appellant must First shyw that he
Coun ge\'s Performance Was deficient Strick lerol 46 ,
US. ab 687, lO” S.ct at ROY; Rone
“Specifically, , Lan] appellant must pove bu @
Preponderance SP phe evidence , that his dodnse|'s
represemtat ay RI below the Obyeahvue ¢handarol
OF Professional nym?! Rone , 17 SW 2 at 33
Next any appellant Must show that jh
Proformanas “tej

Prejrelteed his defense, meaning Prot
he must Shows a reasonable probabil;
rm his Gun

Fo. the}, bat
sels UNPre Rsslory SPOS TA result
OF the Peeeeding Voould pave been Di€fereng., Tel.
(Quctins, chell vy. State &F <5. W: BA 640, Ya CRe
Crrry’, App. 2002) “The. appellant must show that
fre 15 @ reasmble pre ‘oF Mtg that absent tha erws,
He fac tnden Would have had @ reasonable dousl.
ilena ope “IL, ( puoting, Strickland sete US, a}
IS (Oy S. F203), “Thus , Ha reviewing oun}
Lhe. Counsel)
Proper Fanchoning. of the Ad versane | Process, tha,
the tral Cannot be pe hel on as havin Prducad
Oust result. Strickland (Hele at BU ok. Sed at 20uy

S deLye ‘erp

730


TABLE. oF CONTENTS

Vdentity, of Parkes and Counsel 62 + + - eee nee
Table of Contents .. 5 4 4
Inder of ButhoniFibes . 2. 8 we ee ee
Statement of the Case... 1
Issues Presented... 2. 2 « 9 « e we eel
Stoxe ment of Facts . .

‘

.

>

°

’

:

&

’

1)

é

¢

a
—. =
so me
“s

eo eo 2 8 4 8 ees, 2-5

Summary of the Argument ~ 2 © 2 2 4 2 & G7
Argument .

o - » ~» a o e zs

\SSUE ONE * The. Evidence Te TE nsufFiciont
To Support “The Connet

ton of e!l0
Sexuel Assault. Aagroreted

ISSUE TWO: Counse| Rend eel Trefleohive

Assistanoe By Fas ling Te Provicle rou

Proper “Trial Strategy by Opening the
loor For €xtraneouS OFFense.

11-14

\SSUE THREE : Counsel Rendered —neltective II-14
Assistane By Fas ling, Te Envestigete
Allernative ONA.,

# For THE 5RKE OF CONUmpWOs , ssue ~Twe
Gnd heee will Be Litigased Together ,
Prayer a re a

os a as 1)
Certfrate of Service ,

4

—e
—e


TDENTITY oF PARTIES
AND GouNSEL

“Pursuant ts “Texas Rule of A ppe Hate Pro eadure_ 39-1600
the follwsing, list 1S & complete list of aul parhes

to the trial court's judgment and +he names
And addresses of alV 42) and appellate Counse|*

(ao) Plaintitt Appellee
Stroke of “Texas

Bennie Tohnson Se.

@) Defendant's +ria\ aounse)

Wey John Stroud
SIS Main Street
Taxarkann texas qs30)

(A) Appellant's Appella counse|

We. Dernie Ss. We For lane
Sb Prone Street

Pod. Box [0Y¥e

Texarkana Tevas SSD)

(5) Staje's trial anda appellate counsel

Mer. Jerry Reahe tle, , ;
Rowie Cotnty District Attorney's Office
C01 Main Street

Teyarkana ~TexaS "75501

—e


STANDARD OF REVIEW

Courts
adn ce leaalty SUFFfidl ncy review , the

: . mast favorable
loonK at QU ye RVIOAN ce in light os That eonderes
+o the veroliat and determine , based on feel
and reasonable inferences +here from 1a ra
Jury Coutd nave fund the aceussed guilty ©
QA\l the element of aggravate sexual assault beyoad
Q reasonable doubt. See “Jackson y. Virginia 443 U.8.307,

TF
319, 99 SCH. 2981 Gl Lied. 2d S60 (1979)

Qn determining Ud hether +he euidanee 1S SUfficient
to Conuret , the Court must vamine the forall

Of +the Ciraumstanaes . ‘Denton y. State G1, S-W.2d,
38e, 389-90 C7Tex., Crim , App. 199s- )

Evidence is Mor Suffiarent+ under His Standayd in
AUncum stances +
DANE record CONtAINS No evralence probative of an
element of the Offense , n
D+he resoccl contains mere “modicum of evidence
Frokative of an element oF the offense,

dab hy.
3) the evidonae Con alusively pas Bh Ragsonable

Aoub}

) +he acts Alleged ao not apasti tule the Uimjna)
Of fense Charged. Brown u_Stote 38) Su, 3d S65, 5°73
Cevas, Ape - Eastland 201 no pet )(oit;
ale vil) he nel @ Uidence is not

'eient Undir THs Standard 1 the conietrory
Must be nie Gnd an A cgulttel entereol. see
156s iy, ort YSU 21 QI 102 S.C. ae

aSes WV Floridg . : CH. Quy +

Md. Dol bse C192) a “

q,


| ; (dg, the
testimony of Daphne Shiled and outside
Oresenca sh Shenae. »Hha Court aduises aaiieby
Counsel that eels responses From Cap 3480)
Stiles mau, have opened the cloor. Ci2.2.Uel.8+ | ,
Durning Sibe bar questioning. of appellant

by the dourt, defrse counsel admits Hat he
Strong! Odui'sed appellant do Ask) on Ars Om
befalf bers 2168, Ib4, )

“The Court aaain StakeS ON record tatte
testimony of appellant wor l\ Open the door to
the LH ANU ofRnses an.

a oefense counse|
AtKnowleqes <uch. (eg,

2. Vol: & 2 |b7, 170 )
During the testi mon of Kirsh, Links, She
(Anti feed ~and reeovered two DMA ~‘

pecemen &
from INSide +Hhs nape Ky belonging, to Complainknt,
(Ri. Vol. ¥ 7131, 142) The Wn knan" “nq was
Never ested. (2.2.x 2132)

12.