oT __

applicant being Pro-se and Layman of the law, there are some filings
that can be filed unknown to the applicant which could assist him in
these proceedings or harm him . Upon being appointed counsel,” the
applicant request that the appointed counsel do not file anything
until the epplicant and the appointed counsel have discussed all
area's of the proceedings, asking this Honorable Court to order the
appointed counsel to show proof that the applicant and appointed
cpunsel have done as such.

Lastly, the applicant request anLive Evidentiary Hearing based on

the credibility of all those kko have responded to the habeas corpus

‘proceedings as well as the BNA Testing Motion Investigation that is

currently active in this case.aattorney Cary M.Faden was very aware of
what the DNA test results were because he was the one who cross-~
examined the crime leb criminalist Monica Thompson. The bottom line

is that if the applicant would wot have filed a Motion For Forensic
DNA Testing, attorney Cary M.Faden's perjury would not have possibly
ever came to light. So the question is what other lies have been told
and how long have these faise and slandering statements teea stated.
Out cf all these proceedings, the applicant oniy request for a New
Punishment Wearing. Howwser, factualiy, legally, ans procedurally there
are some unresolved issues that. needs to be addressed and fairly
adjudicated.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, applicant, Jason Tyrone Pegues #728196,
respectfully prays that this flonorable Court grant this Motion
requesting the court to hold HC3 and HC4 for 30 Days so applicant can
Supplement and Amend the applécations, as well as appoint the

applicant; ta counsel for the habeas proceedings and DNA Testing


05) without written order. Applicant then filed a post-conviction
Motion For Forensic DNA Teating, and upon the State Investigating the
DNA Testing Motion, on June 30,2015, the State filed a supplémental ©
Amended Answer and Supplemental Amended Findings of Fact & Conclusion:
‘of Law, Reconsidering the applicant's applications 94-DCR-026185 HC3
and 94-DCR-026185 HC4 due to the perjury and error made by attorney |
Cary M.Fsden in his first affidavit which was attached and referenced
in the State's responses to applicant's third and fourth writs, and
for the Respondent contacting Judge David Newell regarding his

thoughts on the applicent's third application.

PURPOSE OF HOTION

Due to the reconsideration of the applicant's third and fourth.
writ for habeas corpus based on the State's perjury and error, the
applicant is requesting that this Honorable Court hold the applicant's
applications HC3 and HC4 for 30 days from the date of filing this
Motion so that applicant can Supplementaand Amend the applications

which were reconsidered. See Ex Parte POND, 418 $.4.34 94 n.13 (Tex.

App .2013):

Best practices include filing all materials with the
Trial Court before the Trial Judge has signed his
Findings of Fact and made his Recommendation
to this Court. But an Applicant is not foreclosed from
amending or supplementing his materials even after
Application is forwarded to this Court,as long as those
materials are filed in the Trial Court.

The applicant also request that the applicant be appointed to
counsel based on the facts, the record, surfacing the many unreselved

issues in the current proceedings of this case 26135. With the



a

proceeding. Based on the perjury and error by the State, questions the
crdibility of those representing the State who have spoken and responded in
proceedings pertaining to this case 26185.TThe applicant prays that this
Honorable Court agrees that a Live Evidentiary Hearing is reasonable and
entitled to the applicant. Over-al1 the applicant prays that this Honorable
court have mercy and grant this Motion that has been presented respectfully

to this Honorable Court.
EXECUTED ON THIS 15th day of JULY,2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

« PEQOES #728196
HUNTSVILLE UNIT

815th 12th STREET
HONTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,Jason Tyrone Pegues #728196, The applicant, being presently confined

in Walker County, Texas do hereby affirm that i have delivered the original
of this Motion Requesting The Court To Hold #O3 end HOS For 30 Days so
Apphicant Can Supplement and Amend The Applications to the prison mailroom

officials for delivery to the following via U.S.Postsi Service;

THE DISTRICT CLERK, ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT
. OF FORT BEND COUNTY
i 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
: HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS R.CULVER, ITI
301 JACKSON STREET
RICHMOND, TEXAS 774659

A copy of this Motion has been forwarded tor

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
P.O. Box 12308
Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

‘filer


. FY UZ OMe

MR. JASON T. PEGUES #728196
HUNTSVILLE UNIT
815 12th STREET
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

JULY 15,2015

TO: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CLERK OF THE COURT: ABEL ACOSTA
P.O. BOX 12308
CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

Re: Ex parte JASON TYRONE PEGUES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN REFERENCE TO CAUSE No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and 94-DCR-026185 HC4
[WR-74,762-03...-WR-74,762-04...-+WR-74,762-05].

DEAR CLERK OF THE COURT:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A MOTION THAT WAS FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN
REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CAUSE NUMBERS AND WRITS. IF YOU WILL
PLEASE FILE THIS IN THE COURT SO THAT IT MAY BE TAKEN INTO : ;
CONSIDERATION UPON HEARING AND RULING, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE.

SPECTFUL SUBMITTED,

SPECTE

ZL AAD
ASON’ TYRO PEGUES #728196

APPLICANT:

co/fite: RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JUL 17 2015

Abel Acosta,Clerk

lof 1


1, JASON TYRONE PEGUES #728196, Presently incarcerated in Walker county,
Texas hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the above
mentioned in my Motion Requesting Tna Court To Hold HC3 and HC4 For

30 Dagg so Applicant Can Supplementaand Amend THe Applications is true

and correct.

Signed on this Lith day of JULY,2015.

Respectful Bubmitted,

te

EGUES #728196

AS
Applicant:

HUNTSVILLE UNIT

815 12th STREET
HUNTSVILLE, TESAS 77348

ce/file: .

-5-


No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and 94-DCR-026185 HC4

WR-74,762-03....WR-74,762-04....WR-74,762-05

NOTICE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT

Ex PARTE

Jason T. Pegues

0? CO? COP 409 407 Cor 40? Or LOD

THE FOLLOWING IS TO INFORM THIS HONORABLE COURT THAT A MOTION HAS
BEEN FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SENT A COPY

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH MOTION SEE:

Ex_ parte POND,418 S.W.3d_ 94 n.13_ (TEX.CRIM.APP.2013):

Best practices include filing all materials with the
Trial Court before the Trial Judge has signed his
Findings of Fact and made his Recommendation
to this court. But an Applicant is not foreclosed from
amending or supplementing his materials even after
application is forwarded to this court, as long as those

materials are filed in the Trial Court.

'S #728196

CC/FILE: APPLICANT:



wee 5

No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and 94-DCR-026185° HC4 os

§
§ IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT °:
Ex Parte §
Jason TYRONE PECUES 3
OF
§
§ ;
‘ 5 FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS 4

Applicant's Motion Requesting The Court To
Hold HC3 and HC4 For 30 Days so Applicant Can
Supplement and Amend The Applications

Comes now, Jason Tyrone Pegues_ #728196, Applicant, Pro-se, in the

above styled ‘and numbered cause of action respectfully file this
Motion Requesting The Court To Hold 94-DCR-026185 HC3 and HC4 so the
Applicant CannSupplement Amend the Applications due to the
reconsideration of 94-DCR-026185 HC3 and 94-DCR-026185 HC4 by this
court based on the perjuzy made by attorney Cary M.Faden in his first
affidavit that was attached to and referenced in the State's earlier
vesponge to both third and fourth writs of habeas corpus. The
applicant would also like to shew this Henorable Court the following:
PROCEDURAL BISTORY
Applicant filed his initial application 11.07 (HC3) around
February 10,2014 and on August 27,2014, the Gourt of ériminal Appeals
denied the writ without written order. On December 10,2014, applicant

filed a subsequent application 11.07 CHC4) LC WR-74,762-04] and on

“March 4,2015 the Court OF Criminal Appeals Dismissed the application

1
without written order, in which this court reconsidered CHC4) and on

June 16,2015, the Gourt of Criminal Appeals Dismissed HC4 (WR-74,762-

-1-