Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/360578298/Original-Writ-of-Habeas-Corpus-Extrinsic-Fraud-and-Actual-Innocence-Chadrick-Pate
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 17:36:06
Document Index: 11179438

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 38', 'Art 11', 'Art 1107', 'Art 1107', 'Art. 42', 'art. 11', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 38']

Original Writ of Habeas Corpus Extrinsic Fraud and Actual Innocence Chadrick Pate | Actual Innocence | Lawsuit | Бесплатная 30-дневная пробная версия | Scribd
This is a case of a "complete miscarriage of justice." Chad should have never been indicted much less found guilty of an offense that he had nothing to do with. Corruption in Aransas County, Texas is real and persistent.
сохранитьСохранить «Original Writ of Habeas Corpus Extrinsic Fraud and...» для последующего чтения
Habeas 2-13-2015 Amend Reply Schwartz Additional Time
Wilson v. Greene, 4th Cir. (1998)
United States v. McMahon, 10th Cir. (2005)
Commer Glass v. Donald T. Vaughn the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania the District Attorney for Philadelphia County Donald T. Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania and Lynne Abraham, District Attorney of Philadelphia County, 65 F.3d 13, 3rd Cir. (1995)
%/4>s~o°[
EX PARTE CHADRICK PATE
ON APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM THE
36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE # A-08-5080-4CR
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE
ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FRAUD ON THE COURTS
AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Patslrnt C°nfa'"nS*°™
attf»toneof,ma8ing.
COURTO^SrAPPEALS
DeanaWilliamson, Clerk
CHADRICK PATE #1563340 ALFRED HUGHES UNIT 3109 FM 929
NEMABARDIN
512-487-0197
bardinnema@yahoo.com
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
The attached Application for Original Writ of Habeas Corpus presents facts already
presented in part to the 36th Judicial District Aransas County Texas in subsequentWrits
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Article
11.07 and returnable to this Honorable Court
which have never been considered or litigated.
The facts contained in the attached Writ and in the subsequently filed 11.07 Writs
contain facts supported by the Record (that is also attached ) that will prove by clear
and convincing evidence from that Record that but for Constitutional Error namely
Fraud on the Court(s) that no reasonable or rationale juror or factfinder would have
found the applicant Chadrick Pate Guilty of the underlying offense of Murder either as
a Principal or as a Party to the Offense.
The factual and legal predicate for the claim of Fraud on the Court(s) and Pate's Actual
Innocence could not have been discovered before Pate filed his Appeal or Initial Writ
because Officer's of the Court concealed their Wrong doing by omission and
commission, by concealing material facts and by tampering with the Court(s) Records,
and failing to provide Notice to Pate of Hearings, Motions, and Orders in the pre trial
proceedings in his case and in his co defendant's pre trial proceedings, that he had the
right to have Notice and Appear and be heard on.
Had Pate been given notice on these matters he could have filed pre trial Appeal or
Habeas Corpus, and obtained relief immediately prior to the trial. As the Writ explains,
numerous subsequent Writs have been filed over a period of now more than 3 years, and
each have been dismissed upon Petitioner's belief without cause or for minor procedural
errors where Applicant was never given opportunity to correct errors, but instead had to
refile each time
that this Honorable Court dismissed the Writs.
The Co defendant's trial was severed from Pate's Trial, Pate was not given notice, and
officer's of the court misrepresented the Severed Trials and made false entrys on the
Record that illegally rejoined Pate to Hall's trial all without Pate's knowledge or consent.
Pate had filed his own Motion for Severance that never received a Denial. Motion for
Continuance were filed by co defendant without notice to Pate, and Pate's trial was
continued with the co defendant 2 separate times without notice to Pate. The attached
record support and prove these statement's.
As this underlying Writ stands, there is no Actual Quick Remedy. If Pate must file once
again a Writ pursuant to Article 11.07 back in the Trial Court, his illegal incarceration
will linger on for many more unnecessary months or even years.
Pate has been incarcerated since May 5th, 2008 for an offense he did not commit, and for
which the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact there was NO evidence
that Pate committed the offense. The trial court record of Pate and the co defendant
support and prove these statements.
Applicant prays that in the interest of Justice that this Honorable Court Grant this
Motion for Leave to File Original Writ of Habeas Corpus, or alternatively Writ of
Mandamus, or provide any Legal Remedy available to Applicant.
etitioner pro se
1801 WesjtlakeDr.#112
bardinnema@vahoo.com
du ?ok
Chadrick Pate Applicant
3201 F M
Gatesville, Texas 78746
The undersigned certifies a true and correct copy of this instrument was served this
day of Sept. 2017, upon The Aransas County District Attorney by placing the same in U. S. Mail with proper postage and addressed affixed to 301 North Live Oak St. Rockport,
Texas 78382.
?ma Ba/di
14801 WesttakeDr.#112
512 487 0197
INDEX TO APPLICATION ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(i.)COVER SHEET WITH PARTY INFORMATION (ii. )INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGH T.
^JURISDICTION AND RESTRAINT
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
6-22 ;
B. GROUNDTWO
VI. CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
IX. APPENDIX WITH REPORTER'S RECORDS & EXHIBITS
CHADRICK PATE
APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CHADRICK PATE# 1563340
ALFRED HUGHES UNIT 3201 FM 929
1801 WESTLAKE DR.
LIST OF AUTHORITES
Armstrong v. Obucino 300 111 140, 143 (1921),
Banks v. State 708 S. W. 2d 460,461-462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)
Bracey v. Warden U. S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 ( June 9, 1997)
Ex parte Brooks 219 S W.3d 396,324-327
v. Navarro 743 F2d 1069 5th Cir. 1984
Browning v. Placke, 698 S W 2d 362(Tex,
citing Cooper v. Tex. Gulf Indus
Browning v Prostock
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. Supreme
Exparte Chabot, 300 S. W. 3d @ 772
Chappell v. State, Tex. Cr.App
Exparte Chavez 371 S. W. 3d 200,205-07 (Tx. Crim. App. 2012 )
Coffey v. State979 S. W. 2nd 326 ,328
(Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
Cooper v. Tex. Gulf Indus, nc. 513 S. W.
200,204 Tex. 174)
Douglas v. State 3rd dist. Austin, Texas 2017
Easter v. State, Tex. Cr. App. 536 S. Wl 2d 223
1 Freeman on Judgments, 120
Foreman and Jones, Submitting Law of Parties in a Texas Criminal
Prosecution, 33 Baylor Law Review 267
Forney v. Jorrie 511 S.W. 379,384 Tex Civ. Appeal San Antonio 1974
writ refdn. re)
Garcia v. State, 630 S W 2d 303, 305 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. (1981, no
Exparte Geter, Tx. Cr. App. 383 S W
Exparte Gomez Tx. Cr. App. 241 S W 2d 153.Exparte
Harrison v. Whiteley, Tex. Com. App 6 S W 2 d
Holder v. Scott 396 S W 2d 906, (Tex.
Civ. Texarkana) 1965 writ ref. n.r.e
Jayconv. State, 651 SW 2d 803 -Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 1983
Kenvit Med. Prods. Inc. v. N & H Instruments Inc. 616 F. 2d 833 , 837
(11th Cir. 1980) Quoting 7 Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure 60.33
Exparte Knipp 236 S W 3d 214 (2007
Layton, 141 S W 3d at 763:In Re Marriage of Ham. 59 S W 3d 326, 332
(Tex. App. Texarcana 2001, no pet) citing Forney v. Jorrie 511 S.W.
79,384 Tex Civ. Appeal San Antonio 1974 writ refdn. re)
Lectric Library "Parties" and "Service of Documents"
Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791,794
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000)
Exparte Leon Vance Madding 70 S. W. 3d 131 Texas Court Criminal Appeals2002
Exparte Milner 39.4 S W 3d 502 (2013)
Montgomery v. Kennedy 669, S W 2d at 313 Browning
Prostock 165 S W d at 348 Texas 2005
7 Moores Fed. Practice & Procedures 60.33
Morrison and Blackwell, New Penal Code Forms, C-7. 01 at 100-01
Moore v. State Tex Cr. App. 521 S. W. 2d 263
Nedds v. Calderon 678 F 3d- Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2012
Oler v. State 998 S W 2d 363, 368 Tex. App. Dallas 1999
Exparte Pearce
Tx. Cr. App 230 S W 2d 830
PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S. W 3d 267, 275 9 Tex. 2012
( quoting Browning v. Prostok, Inc., 165 S. E. 3D 336, 348 (Tex. 005)
Sabariego v. Maverick 124 U. S. 261 31 L.E.d 430. S. Ct.
The Supreme Court in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 94 S. Ct.
Singletary v. State, Tex. Cr. App., 509 S. W. 2d 572
Syanon Foundation v. Bernstein, 503 A 2d 1254 (D C 1986) Synanon cert.
107 S. Ct.
69, 93 Led, 2d 26 (1986)
United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217 54 S. Ct. 434, 78 L.Ed. 763, 89 A.L.R.
Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co. 328 U S 575 , 580 (1946)
Vela v. Marrywood 17 S W 3d 750 reviewed with per curiam opinion 53 S.
W. 3d 684 rehearing denied Tx. App. Austin 2000
Exparte Williams 169 Tx. Crim. App. R 96,33 S W 2d 940
Govt Code Sec 51.303
Art. 38.14. Testimony ofAccomplice
Texas Penal Code 7.01
24,29.30
Texas Penal Code 7.02
Texas Penal Code 7.03
Texas Penal Code Sec. 37.01Perjury & Falsification
Texas Penal Code Sec. 37.04 Materiality.
Texas Penal Code 37.10 Tampering With Govt.Record
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure28.01
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chap. 11 Article 11.07 4(a)(l)(2)
Texas Code of Civil Procedure 247 Trial Date Docket Setting
Texas Constitution Article V
Section 5 of the Texas Constitution
5>»)»555>»JJJ>5J»555»5J?J
A-08-5080-4CR
A-08-5080-4CR(HC1-HC6
Trial Judge Janna K Whatley
TEXAS COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS
WR-78,165-02 THRU WR-78,165-08
13-09-00112CR
EXTRINSIC FRAUD ON THE COURTS AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR
ALTERNATIVELY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
To The Honorable Justices of said Court,
Comes now, Chadrick Pate Applicant, (hereafter Pate) by and through undersigned
Petitioner pro se Nema Bardin, and presents this Application For Original Writ of
Habeas Corpus, and as grounds therefor would respectfully show this Honorable Court
This is a Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking both Acquittal and
relief from an Illegal Judgment and Conviction for Murder obtained in the 36th District
Aransas County, Texas Trial Court & obtained through multiple Constitutional Grounds
that include Extrinsic Fraud on the 36th District Aransas County, TexasTrial Court, on
Applicant and on the 13* Court ofAppeals Corpus Christi, Texas, and The Texas Court
Pate will demonstrate the Extrinsic Fraud on the Courts and on Pate, his Actual
Innocence and the Multiple Constitutional Violations supported from the Trial Court's
own Pre Trial and Trail Records in Pate's Cause A-08-5080-4CR and his co defendant
Christopher Hall's Cause Nos. A-08-5080-2CR & S-08-5080-2.
Some of the Grounds relate to Jurisdictional Defects that render Orders, Judgments, and
the Conviction Void. For these reasons, the relief sought in this application should be
granted, and the indictment dismissed.
JURISDICTION AND RESTRAINT
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Writ by virtue of the
authority vested in the Court by Article V Section 5 of the Texas Constitution .
Pate is is illegally incarcerated and restrained in The Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Alfred Hughes Unit, Gatesville, Texas at 3109 F M 929 . by virtue of a
Unconstitutional Final Judgment and Conviction Ex #1 Clerk's Record Pages 89-93
Judgment, obtained by Extrinsic Fraud on the Courts and on Pate, that renders all
the Orders, Judgments and Conviction Void.
And because Pate has attempted to obtain Relief from the Judgment and Conviction
numerous times by filing Writs of Habeas Corpus Article 11.07 in the Trial Court
returnable to this Honorable Court. Ex # 4 WR-78,165-02 thru WR-78,165-08 .
Where applicant is entitled to a Writ on his Petition and is Denied such right, the Court
of Criminal Appeals may hear the Petition as an Original Proceeding: Exparte Pearce
Tx. Cr. App 230 S W 2d 830. Exparte Gomez Tx. Cr. App. 241 S W 2d 153. Exparte
Geter, Tx. Cr. App. 383 S W
S.W. 2D 940
2d 405, Exparte Williams 169 Tx. Crim. App. R 96,33
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pate was indicted jointly with Christopher Hall, Jason Underwood, Kevin Tanton and
Antony Ray, by a Grand Jury on 6/24/08 in Aransas County, Texas for Count
One Murder Texas Penal Code (19.02) and Count Two Aggravated Assault Texas Penal
Code 22.02 and Organized Criminal Activity Texas Penal Code 71.02.
Underwood, Tanton and Ray eventually took plea deals to testify against Pate and Hall
and Pate and Hall were convicted for Murder in a joint jury trial and sentenced both to
99 years and a $10,000.00 fine. The joint jury trial was conducted over 4 days 2-9 -09
thru 2-13-09. After Judgment and Conviction, Pate Appealed his Judgment and
Conviction to the 13th Court ofAppeals. The Trial CourtAppointed Terry Collins for his
Appeal, 13- 09-00112CR, denied 8/25/10, Pate filed Petition for Discretionary Review
that was denied on 6/21/11,Pate then filed his Initial State Writ of Habeas Corpus by and
through Attorney Carrie Crisp WR-78,165-01, denied w/o Written Order 3/6/2012
and then filed Pro Se a Federal Habeas Corpus :4;13-cv-00709 denied 3/20/14. Pate's
Mother then pulled Hall's Record of Proceedings sometime in May or June 2014, from
the website Pacer. Record of Certified Proceedings A-08--5080-2CR &
S-08-5080-2
Christopher Hall. See, Exparte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)
(concluding that court would address merits of subsequent habeas application when
applicant showed that present claim could not have been presented in his initial writ
application because the factual basis for it was "unavailable").
After reviewing Hall's Record of Proceedings numerous times, Pate
Discovered the factual evidence of Extrinsic Fraud and
Fraud on the Court. This
evidence was newly available and not discover-able by due diligence because the
factual evidence in Hall's separate pre trial hearings was intentionally concealed
from Pate and the Court's by the Fraud practiced on Pate and the Courts and because the
proceedings were not made a part of Pate's Trial Court Proceedings. Hall's Separately
held Pre trial proceedings revealed that Pate had received NO Notice of the
Hearings, Motions and Orders resulting from Hall's Separate Proceedings that directly
affected Pate's claims and defenses, and Pate had no Notice or Opportunity
to be Heard on the Motions and Orders that directly affected his claims and defenses.
Pate's Claim of Fraud on the Court and Void Judgment are not barred, they
have never been litigated and the claims are collateral (pre trial) to the Judgments and
Orders of The Trial Court 36th District Court Aransas County, Texas, The the 13th Court
ofAppeals Corpus Christi, Texas, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and even to
the Jury Trial in the 36th District Court Aransas County Texas, as the commission of
fraud was practiced and Concealed in the Pre Trial Proceedings of Pate and Hall.
The claims were presented before, in previous Writs of Habeas Corpus but not
adjudicated. All Writs were Dismissed, not Denied. Pate, has been attacking Pro Se
the Judgment and Conviction consistently since discovering the
fraud, first by
Motion to Vacate Judgment returnable to the Trial Court 36th District Aransas County
Texas filed 12/5/14 amended 1/5/14 and when the Trial Court failed to Answer, Pate
withdrew the Motion on 5/18/15 to pursue relief from the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals directly and filed WR-78,165-02 Motion for leave to file Original
Writ of Habeas Corpus denied 6/24/15, and then filed Mandamus filed in 13th Courtof
Appeals disposed 8/26/2015 , then filed a Second WR-78,165-03 Motion for Leave to
file Denied 10/7/2015,then filed the following Writs to the 36th District Court Aransas
County Texas returnable to The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; WR-78,-165-04
Dismissed Non Comp.
2/10/16,WR-78,165-05 Dismissed Art 11.07 Sec 4, 6/15/16 ,
WR-78,-165-06 Dismissed Non Comp. 9/28/16, WR-78,165-07, Dismissed Art 1107
(Sec.4,)l/25/17, WR-78,165-08 Dismissed Non Comp Art 1107( Sec 4,) 6/7/17.
Pate has continually challenged his Judgment and Conviction over the course of 9 lA
years, because he is innocent.
Without Hall's Record of Proceedings that were not made a part of Pate's Record, The
Court could not fairly and impartially adjudicate Pate's claims and defenses and Pate
properly litigate his claims and defenses, and without Hall's Record, Pate
could not prove the Fraudulent Proceedings that also took place in his own pre trial
proceedings and the Court could not discover the commission of fraud practiced on it.
Pate relied on his Defense Attorney's Fiduciary Responsibility to give him Notice of all
Motions, Hearings and Orders that directly affected his claims and defenses, and on
other Officer's of the Court who had the responsibility and obligation to Not remain
silent. Pate relied on the Trial Judge to safeguard his Constitutional Rights, to Notice,
and Opportunity to be Heard where Hearings, Motions and Orders affected his
pre trial claims and defenses.
Newly Discovered Factual & Legal Evidence of Extrinsic Fraud on the Court That
Terminated Jurisdiction to Proceed to Trial. Judgment and Conviction are "Void." By
preponderance of the evidence but for the violation of the U. S. Constitution, no
reasonable juror could have found Pate Guilty .
POINTS AND ARGUMENT
Sec. 4 of Article 11.07, Tx. Code of Crim. Proc. Subsequent Writ Sec 4(a) (1)
current claims & issues have not been & could not have been presented previously in
original application or in a previously considered application filed under this article
because the factual or legal basis for claim was unavailable OR (2) by a preponderance
of the evidence but for a violation of the U S Constitution no rational juror could have
found the applicant Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
LEGAL BASIS In Exparte Chavez 371 S. W. 3d 200,205-07 (Tx. Crim. App. 2012) he
court held that it's decision in Exparte Chabot, 300 S. W. 3d @ 772 which held, for the
first time that the unknowing use of false testimony in obtaining a conviction violates
due process provides a New Legal basis . In Pate's case it is the Fraud On the Court and
on Pate.
FACTUAL EVIDENCE: a Newly available fact is an actual or alleged event or
circumstance. In Pate's Case the factual evidence was fraudulently concealed in the
separate pre trial proceedings of Pate's co defendant Hall.
Pate's claims for relief should not be barred, first because he is Actually Innocent of the
Offense for which he was Indicted and convicted, and because the factual and legal
evidence that support the claim of Extrinsic Fraud on the Court was not and could not
be discovered by reasonable or due diligence before Pate's Appeal, Exhibit # 3
Appeal's Court's Joint Memorandum, Initial Application for 11.07 Writ of Habeas
Corpus Exhibit # 5.
Because Officer's of the Court concealed their wrong doing from the Court and
Pate by holding separate pre trial hearings of Pate and Co defendant Hall, and not
giving Pate Notice of the Hearings, Motions and Orders keeping him from
appearing in the proceedings and obtaining knowledge of Motions and Orders that
directly affected Pate's own pre trial Motions, and prevented him from litigating
his claims and defenses. The newly discovered legal and factual evidence discovered in
2014 after obtaining Hall's Trial Court Records, revealed that Officer's of the Court,
Tampered with the Court's Records Texas Penal Code 37.10 Text attached Exhibit
Officer's of the Court had violated Court's Orders multiple times, and in particular
the Oral Order by Judge Joel Johnson in Hall's pre trial proceeding RR vol 4 of 11
(10/23/08) where Pate had no Notice that Judge Johnson had Ordered the Joint Trial of
Pate and Hall Severed when he Granted Hall's Motion for Continuance filed that same
day. Ex # 2 Hall's Clerk's Record page 44-46 and Denied the State's Oral Motion RR
vol 4 of 11 page_ lines
, to Carry Pate's Trial forward with Hall's Separate
Jury Trial Continued to 1/5/09. Although the Courts Record had been tampered with
prior to the 10/23/08 hearing, the tampering was consistent and persistent after that
hearing. Judge Johnson's Oral Orders from the Hearing were not entered on Pate's Pre
Trial or Trial Court Record, and there are No Written Orders appearing in Pate's Record
that journals the Oral Orders that Severed Hall's Trial from his own.
Fraudulent entries were made onto Pate's Docket Sheet Ex# 1 Pate's Clerk's Record
page 95., that reveals on 10/30/08 , Officer's of the court made a false entry of a
Motion for Continuance by Pate, and false reset Jury trial date to the same date of Hall's
new Trial Date of 1/5/09. There is nothing in the Record that Journals or Supports a
Motion, Order, Hearing, or Agreement for Continuance to a trial date of 1/5/09. Review
Pate's Clerk's Record Exhibit # 1. Pate's Court Ordered Jury Trial Date of
11/03/08 is journaled in writing and Ordered by Judge Michael Wellborn in RR
vol 2 of 9 (9/25/08). The Record reveals that without cause, Pate's Jury Trial was
not conducted on the Court Ordered date of 11/03/09.
On 11/25/08 in Hall's pre trial proceeding RR vol 5 of 11 attached, Stan Turpin, Hall's
Defense Attorney, Marcelino Rodriguez States Attorney, and Judge Michael Wellborn
had ex parte communication where they each misrepresented Pate's properly filed
Motion for Severance indicating that he did not have a Motion for Severance in his
file. (He did Ex. # 1 Pate's Clerk's Record page 36. Also see page 45 A fraudulent
Order Granting Pate's Motion for Severance. They each misrepresented that Pate's
Jury Trial Date had been set on the same Trial Docket date as Hall's for 1/5/09. The
Record is Void of Stan Turpin or Marcelino Rodriguez receiving a Motion, Order
Hearing or Agreement of all Parties to a Continuance that would reset Pate's Jury Trial
for 1/5/09 from Judge Wellborn's Court Order that Set Pate's Trial for 11/3/08 See
Pate's RR vol 2 of 9 (9/25/08).
On 12/22/08 Officer's of the Court once again made a fraudulent entry onto Pate's
Docket Sheet Ex # 1 Pate's Clerk's Record page 95 Pate's Docket Sheet. Shows Reset
Trial Date to 2/9/09, Announcement for 2/5/09. The Record is Void of any Notice,
Motion, Order, Hearing or Agreement to Continue or Reset Pate's Trial Date.
On 12/19/09, Hall filed a Motion for Continuance Ex # 2 Hall's Clerk's Record page
82-84. The Motion gives Notice to the State, but no Notice to Pate.
On 12/22/09, Judge Michael Wellborn Grants Hall's Motion for Continuance without
Notice to all Parties, a Hearing, or an Agreement of all Parties and Resets Hall's Trial to
2/9/09 and Announcement 2/5/09. Ex # 2 Hall's Clerk's Record page 85.
On 2/5/09 Officer's of the court once again made a false entry onto Pate's Docket
Sheet showing Ready. Ex #1 Pate's Clerk's Record page 95. The Record is Void of
any Hearing or Evidence of Pate announcing Ready for Trial on 2/5/09 or of any
Notice to Pate on a Hearing or Announcement Date.
On 2/5/09 in a Pre Trial Hearing for Hall RR vol 5A of 11, both the State and Hall
announced Ready for Trial. The State did not Announce Ready on Pate. Judge Janna
Whatley did not call Pate's name or Case Number and provided no Notice to Pate of any
Motions, Orders or of the Hearing. Judge Whatley did ask Pate's Attorney who was in
appearance who would be doing Punishment, and he responded that he thought the Jury.
This proceeding contains an out of sequence Reporter's Record of 5A of 11, attached
and contains a different cause number of S-08-5080-2, This Record is not listed in
Hall's RR Vol 1 Of 11 page 2 Index Sheet.
Pate's Record is Void of any Motion ,Order, Hearing or Evidence that Pate's was a
Threat to anyone at his trial that would support the Court forcing him to go to Trial in
Leg Restraints. RR V6L
The Trial Court Record supports that Officer's of the Trial Court Certified a Fraudulent
and incompleteRecord of Proceedings to The 13* Court ofAppeals Corpus Christi
Texas, and to The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex # 1 Pate's Clerk's Record
that Contains the Fraudulent Docket Sheet, Fraudulent Order Granting Pate's Motion for
Severance with no Nunc Pro Tunc Order, The Record does not contain Hall's pre trial
Record of Proceedings which without neither the Court ofAppeals or the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals could fairly and impartially make judicial determinations that
would affirm Pate's Judgment and Conviction.
Judge Johnson's Pre Trial Oral Orders: The Record does not reveal a Motion or a
Order for a joint trial however Pate was jointly indicted with all other defendant's.
Because Pate and Hall had been joined for trial prior to the 10/23/08 Hearing RR
vol 4 of 11, when Judge Johnson's Oral Order was pronounced, it terminated the
joint trials. A Trial court's Pronouncement of Order is Oral, while judgment, is
merely written declaration & embodiment of oral pronouncement. Art. 42.01 See
Banks v. State 708 S. W. 2d 460, 461-462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The record
reveals that there was no Written Order that memorialized Judge Johnson's Order
to Continue Hall's Trial, and no Written Order that Denied the State's Motion to
Carry Pate's Trial forward with Hall's new Trial Date.
However see Coffey v. State
979 S. W. 2nd 326,328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) showing that the Oral Order Controls.
The rule demonstrates that impostion of order is crucial moment when all parties are
physically present at the hearing and able to hear and respond to the Order. However as
previously stated, Pate was not in appearance at the Hearing, because it was separately
held for the co defendant, and the Hearing, Motions and Orders were concealed from
Pate by the officer's of the Court. Had Pate been given Notice of the Hearing then he
could have Appealed the Process where the Court illegally rejoined his trial with the co
defendant in a pre trial appeal, and ask for Dismissal for violation of his U S
Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial.
Instead Pate has had to go through the more
cumbersome procedure of filing numerous subsequent Writs of Habeas Corpus , that are
slower, less effective and subject to denial unless He has asserted and proven
jurisdictional violations. See Exparte Leon Vance Madding 70 S. W. 3d 131 Texas
Court Criminal Appeals 2002 that supports this theory.
Pate discovered the violations contained herein in or around 2014 and has been filing
with the Trial Court Writs requesting relief from the illegal Judgment and Conviction
since then. Pate was arrested on May 5th 2008. Todays date is Sept. 2017. Pate has
lingered in the Texas Jail or Prison System begging for relief for more than 9 years.
All courts have the inherent equitable power to vacate a judgment that has been
obtained through the commission of fraud upon the court.
Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co. 328 U S 575,580 (1946).
The Court is authorized and required to vacate judgments made in connection with
proceedings conducted in the absence of Jurisdiction or tainted by fraud:
It is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated or set
aside. It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral. Holder v. Scott 396 S. W.
2d 906, (Tex. Civ. Texarkana) 1965 writ ref. n.r.e.
A court reviewing a habeas petition should adhere to "a tradition in which courts
of equity have sought to 'relieve hardships which, from time to time, arise from
a hard and fast adherence 'to more absolute legal rules, which, if strictly applied
threaten the 'evils of archaic rigidity.' Id
Appeals, 9th Circuit 2012.
Nedds v. Calderon 678 F 3d- Court of
VOID JUDGMENT: "Where a void judgment has been rendered and the record in the
cause, or judgment roll
reflects the vice, then the court has not only the power but the
duty and even after the
expiration of the term to set aside such judgment" Harrison v.
Whiteiey, Tex. Com. App 6 S W 2 d 89.
CORRECTING THE FRAUD OUTWEIGHS NEED FOR FINALITY: Appellate
courts have found that fraud is extrinsic in rare cases when "fraud distorts the
judicial process to such an extent that confidence in the ability to discover the fraudulent
conduct through the regular adversarial process is undermined" and the need to correct
such a distortion out weighs the need for finality ofjudgment. PNS Stores, Inc. v.
Rivera, 379 S. W. 3d 267,275 9 Tex. 2012 ( quoting Browning v. Prostok, Inc., 165
3D 336,348 (Tex. 2005)
Extrinsic Fraud: justifies an exception to the tenet of finality because it prevents a real
trial upon the issue involved Montgomery v. Kennedy 669, S W
Prostock 165 S W
d at 348 Texas 2005.
2d at 313 Browning
JOINT JURY TRIAL: The Joint Jury Trial was not tried in Accordance with Judge Joel
Johnson's Pre Trial documented and joumaled
Court Order for Separate Jury Trials of
Hall and Pate in Hall's RR 4 of 11 and not included in Pate's Record . The Joint Jury
Trial conducted by Judge Janna Whatley leading up to the Judgment and Conviction
was in violation of Judge Joel Johnson's Court Order that Severed the Joint Trials, and
thus further consideration was barred by "Law of the Case" Doctrine, The Court's
Jurisdiction was divested and The Trial Court could not proceed to a Joint Trial or a
Separate Trial, See Browning v. Navarro 743 F2d 1069 5th Cir. 1984., explaining
SEPERATE PRE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS & Party to the Proceedings: Hall's Pre
Trial Proceedings were held in Separate Proceedings and Pate was not Noticed on any of
the Hearings, Motions or Orders of Christopher Hall Cause No. A-08-5080-2CR & S-
-08-5080-2, and not Noticed on his own pre trial hearings, Motions, and Orders in A-08-
5080-4CR, thereby Pate never had knowledge of the hearings, motions and orders, being
kept in ignorance by the acts of his attorney, the prosecution, the district
clerk, Hall's attorney and the Judges of the Court. A party is any person joined for a
trial, and a "party" to a lawsuit has the right to receive written notice that he is being
sued OR that a "hearing" will be held that might affect him in some way. Definition by
Lectric Library "Parties" and "Service of Documents" Not only did Pate have the
right as a party to have notice of all the pre trial hearings, he was required by Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure 28.01 to appear at all pre trial hearings including
Severance Hearings and Continuance Hearings.
Officer's of the Court misrepresenting material facts:
RR vol. 5 of 11
amoung other things, reveals officer's of the Court actively and intentionally
misrepresenting Pate's Motion for Severance and his Court Ordered Jury Trial Date.
Vela v. Marrywood 17 S W 3d 750 reviewed with per curiam opinion 53 S. W. 3d 684
rehearing denied Tx. App. Austin 2000 showing: Fraud may consist of both active
misrepresentation and passive silence.
Finality of the Judgment: Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. Supreme Court 1998.
The Court made clear that had his Habeas Corpus Case been a case of "fraud upon the
court" that called into question the very legitimacy of the Judgment referencing Hazel-
Atlas that the state would have no interest in the finality of the Judgment.
VOID JUDGMENT: The trial court lost jurisdiction when violating Pate's U. S.
Constitutional Due Process Rights to Notice, Opportunity to be Heard, and a Fair
A judgment is Void only when it is shown the trial court had no
jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no
jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.
Browning Placke, 698 S W 2d 362(Tex, 1985) citing Cooper v. Tex. Gulf Indus, nc.
513 S. W.
200,204 Tex. 174) .
Fraudulent Concealment: The use of deception by an accused is evidence of intent to
defraud and harm which may take the form of false information or of engaging in
behavior designed to avoid detection Garcia v. State, 630 S W 2d 303,305 (Tex.
App.Houston 1st Dist. (1981, no pet). Officer's avoided detection of their misconduct
by holding separate pre trial proceedings and then not giving Notice to Pate or the Court
of the Hearings, Motions and Orders that directly affected Pate's right to litigate his
claims and defenses in a fair hearing, and deceived the Court so that it could not fairly
and impartially adjudicate the issues at the Pre Trial or the Trial.
Texas has held in Texas Criminal Cases that Intent to Defraud as intent to cause another
to rely upon the falsity of a representation, such that the other person is induced to act
or refrain from acting Douglas v. State 3rd dist. Austin, Texas 2017. Both Pate and
the Court acted and refrained from acting based upon the misconduct of the
officer's of the Court.
FADLURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OR PERSONAL SERVICE:
previously Pate was not given Notice of either his own or his Co defendant's Pre trial
Motions, Orders or Hearings. The failure to serve an opponent with personal service in
order to obtain judgment without notice is extrinsic fraud
Layton, 141 S W
Re Marriage of Ham. 59 S. W. 3d 326,332 (Tex. App. Texarcana 2001, no
pet) citing Forney v, Jorrie 511 S.W. 379,384 Tex Civ. Appeal San Antonio 1974
writ refd n. re).
Extrinsic Fraud: Pate's trial was not conducted pursuant to his U S Constitutional
Due Process rights and in essence there was no real adversarial trial upon his
issues. Extrinsic Fraud justifies an exception to the tenet of finality because it prevents a
real trial upon the issue involved Montgomery v. Kennedy 669, S W
2d at 313
Browning Prostock 165 S W d at 348 Texas 2005.
FRAUD ON THE COURT:
It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and
consistently with the good order of society, Synanon Foundation, Inc. v.
Bernstein, 517 A. 2d 28 -DC Court of Appeals 1986. Bad faith litigation tactics
subverting the integrity of the judicial process. In Syanon Foundation v.
Bernstein, 503 A 2d 1254 (D C 1986) Synanon cert. Denied
69, 93 Led, 2d 26 (1986) , we upheld the pretrial dismissal of Synanon's complaint
due to its perpetration of a massive fraud upon the court. There, we described
Synanon's temporarily successful attempt to deceive the trial court and influence
it's decisions as "conduct which the administration ofjustice could not tolerate.
Oler v. State 998 S W 2d 363,368 Tex. App. Dallas 1999 describing fraud is defined as
"trickery or deceit" Intentional misrepresentation,concealment or nondisclosure for the
purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing
belonging to him or a false representation of a matter of fact by words or conduct.
Kenvit Med. Prods. Inc. v. N & H Instruments Inc. 616 F. 2d 833 ,837 (11th Cir.
1980) Quoting 7 Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure 60.33 The Court observed
that when the party is a government, acting through its duly authorized counsel, "the
distinction between client and attorney actions becomes meaningless" Id. In such cases,
no scheme based on a subjective intent to commit fraud is required, Rather, "reckless
disregard for the truth is sufficient" to constitute fraud on the court Id At 353.
JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO FOLLLOW STATUTORY PROCEDURES:
Judge Michael Wellborn and Judge Janna Whatley failed to follow statutory procedures
as evidenced when each of them held proceedings where Pate was not present and was
not given notice of the hearings, motions, and orders, and where they violated Court
When a Judge does not follow statutory procedures and where a Judge does not act
impartially subject matter jurisdiction fails. See Armstrong v. Obucino 300 111 140,
143 (1921), Bracey v. Warden U. S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9,1997)
When a Judge enforces a Void Order (an order issued without jurisdiction) they become
trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason See (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120
-c).( Every Order Issued after 11/3/08 was a Void Order, including the Judgment
and Conviction.)
The Supreme Court in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232,94 S. Ct. 1683,1687
(1974) states, "When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the
Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
Constitution and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and
is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority
of the United States. State officers include Court's Clerks, Attorneys, Judges,
Prosecutors and others.
1510. Jurisdiction is fundamental, and as heretofore pointed out, must be continuing in
the court throughout the proceedings, because it is jurisdiction alone that gives the court
power to hear determine and pronounce judgment upon the issues before it.
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard
is not a determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any tribunal. See
Sabariego v. Maverick 124 U. S. 261 31 L.E.d 430. S. Ct. 461.
TAMPERING WITH THE COURTS RECORD: As previously stated, Officer's of
the Court tampered with the Court Records, when they made fraudulent entries onto the
record and failed to make proper entries for other proceedings. They tampered with the
Record when certifying a Fraudulent Record of proceedings to the 13th Court ofAppeals
and to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex # 5 Texas Penal Code Title 8.
Offenses Against Public Administration Chap. 37. Perjury and other Falsification
Sec. 37.01. Definitions. In this Chapter: (1) "Court record" means a decree,
judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other documents issued by a
court of: (A) this state; (2) "Governmental record" means: (A) anything belonging
to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record;
Sec. 37.04. Materiality, (a) A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the
statement under the rules of evidence , if it could have affected the course or outcome of
the official proceeding. The Statement's made by Officer's of the Court in the 11/25/08
RR 5 of 11 proceedings directly affected Pate's claims and defenses, and changed the
entire course of the pre trial and trial. See Ex. # 5 Text of Sec. 37.10 . Tampering with
Governmental Record:
a) a person commits an offense if he (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, Or
(3) Intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity,
legibility, or availability of a governmental record;
The District Clerk and Trial Judges intentionally and knowingly made false entry onto
Pate's Record of Proceedings, and included falsified Court Documents and failed to
record and include the proceedings from Hall's Record of Proceedings that directly
affected Pate's pre trial and joint jury trial claims & defenses & presented the Record of
Proceedings as a Certified Record of Proceedings to The 13th Court ofAppeals
Corpus Christ, Texas and The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
intending that those courts would rely on the Fraudulent and Incomplete Record of
Proceedings to make fair and impartial adjudications of Pate's claims and defenses. The
Record of Proceedings contained Fraudulent Entry of Motions and Orders, Fraudulent
Docket Sheet, and Fraudulent Clerk's Record. The documents are government records
and were tampered with, to create a false impression of the actual
pre trial and trial. The Record of Proceedings certified to the 13th Courtof Appeals, and
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, produced a false
narrative of the actual
Proceedings and Record of the Court, making it impossible for the Court to adjudicate
Pate's Appeal, and Habeas Proceedings in a fair and impartial way. The fraudulent
record also stopped Pate from litigating all of his claims and defense, and from
receiving a fair hearing with the opportunity to be heard.
The Aransas County District Clerk Pam Heard and Staff under the supervision of the
Trial Court Judges, tampered with the Courts Records, and failed in her duties as
described in Govt Code Sec 51.303 Duties of the Clerk has custody of and shall
carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the
clerks office the clerk shall record the Acts and Proceedings of the court and enter all
judgments of the court under the direction of the Judge.
A District Clerk and Trial Judges have Constructive Knowledge of all Of the Pre Trial
and Trial Proceedings , and would know when false entry's have been made to the
proceedings. The District Clerk knowingly made false entry's onto Pate Pre Trial Court
Proceedings, and presented The Court Records as Certified Record of Proceedings to
The Trial Court, 13th court of appeals and The Texas Court of CriminalAppeals with
full knowledge that the proceedings were false and intended that Pate and All Court's
coming into contact with the proceedings would view the Record of Proceedings as a
governmental record that could be relied upon.
NO EVTOENCE SUPPORTS THE JURY'S GUILTY VERDICT. PATE IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ACTUALLY INNOCENT OF THE OFFENSE OF
MURDER WERE IT NOT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF DUE
PROCESS NO REASONABLE
JUROR COULD HAVE FOUND PATE GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE
There is No Evidence in the Record of Evidence that Supports the Jury's Guilty Verdict
for Pate committing Murder by Intentionally or Knowingly causing the Death of Aaron
Watson by shooting him with a firearm, or any Evidence that he would be Criminally
Responsible for the Conduct ofAnother as a Party to the Offense by with intent he
promoted the commission of the Murder by Soliciting, Directing, Encouraging, Aiding
or Attempting to Aid in the Commission of the Offense before during or after the
Offense was committed by another.
The newly discovered factual evidence of "fraud on the court' violates Pate's U. S.
Constitutional Due Process Rights, and opens the door to Pate's claim of actual
innocence. When presenting Schlup type actual innocence, one must make a
Constitutional violation claim and a prima facie actual innocence Ex parte Brooks 219
S W.3d 396,324-327. In Exparte Knipp 236 S W 3d 214 (2007) the Court of Criminal
Appeals found that applicant made prima facie showing of actual innocence under
4(a)(2) deciding applicant could not be guilty.
This Court has also recognized that, even if an application does not meet the
requirements of 4(a)(1), a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus may
overcome the procedural bar of art. 11.07, 4, if an applicant can show a constitutional
violation that fulfills the requirements of 4(a)(2), Exparte Milner 39.4 S W 3d 502
first, that a murder was committed by another person by intentionally or knowingly
causing the death of Aaron Watson by shooting him with a firearm, (that much was
proved) however none of the following elements were proved. Conduct
by Pate that would connect him to the Murder that would make him criminally
responsible for another by an Overt act of acting with intent to solicit, direct, assist,
encourage, aid, or attempt to aid another in the commission of Murder, (none of the
elements were proven, as there was NO Evidence with which to prove them)
In Singletary v. State, Tex. Cr. App., 509 S. W. 2d 572: The court describes an
accomplice witness (which is the same as a party to the offense) by stating "An
accomplice has been described as a person, who, either as a principal,
accomplice, or accessory, was connected with the crime by unlawful act or omission
on his part, transpiring either before, at the time of, or after the commission of the
offense, and whether or not he was present and participated in the crime"
There was NO evidence to corroborate testimony of the 3 accomplice witness that
testified against Pate that he was criminally responsible for someone else who murdered
Aaron Watson, as required by Article 38.14, V.A.C.C.P. The application ofArt. 38.14
requires that the testimony of the accomplice witness's be eliminated from
consideration while the testimony of the other witnesses is examined for evidence of an
incriminating nature tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense,
Moore v. State Tex Cr. App. 521 S. W. 2d 263.
fact that a party has complicity with one of the accused in the commission of
other offenses does not make him an accomplice for the offense for which he is accused
and on trial, if there is no showing of his complicity in that offense. Easter v. State,
Tex. Cr. App. 536 S. WI 2d 223. The record does not reflect any affirmative act by Pate
to assist some one else in Aaron Watson's, murder. See Chappell v. State, Tex. Cr.App.
519 S. W. 2d 453. The State made no showing that Pate participated in planning or
promoting the offense once accomplice witness testimony is removed.
The jury was charged with finding Pate Guilty if they believed beyond a reasonable
doubt that he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Aaron Watson by shooting
him with a firearm, and that another party participated with him in the act.
The jury found Pate Guilty of Murder as charged in the Indictment. Ex # 1 Pate's
Clerk's Record page 4 Indictment and page 72 Jury Verdict. The indictment under
Count One charged Pate with acting alone and together with Michael Jason Underwood
Christopher Joseph Hall, Anthony Lee Ray, and Kevin Ray Tanton, did then and there
intentionally or knowingly, cause the death of an individual, namely, Aaron Watson by
shooting the said Aaron Watson with a firearm. The Record on the Trial reveals that
there was no evidence that Pate intentionally or knowingly caused Aaron Watson's
death by shooting him with a firearm. The evidence reveals just the opposite. The
evidence reveals that it was Pate's co defendant Hall who intentionally or knowingly
caused Aaron Watson's Death by shooting him with a firearm. The trial court issued a
jury charge for both Pate and Hall, that read exactly the same. See Ex #1 Pate's Clerk's
Record page 60-end Jury Charge, and Ex #2 Hall's Clerk's Record page 98-end
The Jury also found Hall Guilty of Murder as charged in the indictment. Hall's
Indictment read exactly as Pate's indictment See Ex # 2 Hall's Clerk's Record page
110 Verdict Form & page 4-5 Indictment. There was ample evidence found in the
Record on the Trial that supports Hall's Guilty Verdict, that his conduct caused the
Murder of Aaron Watson by intentionally or knowingly shooting him with a firearm,
and that Michael Jason Underwood, Antony Lee Ray and Kevin Ray Tanton
participated as parties to the act.
The jury charge for both Pate and Hall reads ; Now, if you find from the
beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about January 4, 2008, in Aransas County, Texas
the defendant CHADRICK B. PATE (SUBSTITUTE CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL
FOR HALL'S JURY CHARGE) acting alone or together with Michael Jason
Underwood, Christopher Joseph Hall (SUBSTITUTE CHADRICK B. PATE FOR
HALL'S JURY CHARGE) Anthony Lee Ray, and Kevin Ray Tanton, did then and there
intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual, namely Aaron Watson by
shooting the said Aaron Watson with a firearm, then you will find the defendant guilty
of Murder. The indictment permits the Jury to find Pate and Hall Guilty if the evidence
raises both the theory that the Defendant (Pate) did the act charged and the theory that
another person participated with Pate in doing the act.
Pate's Trial Court Record is void of any evidence that he did the act charged and another
person participated with him in doing the act. The ACT described in both the
indictment and the Jury charge is that Pate did then and there intentionally or knowingly,
cause the death of an individual, namely Aaron Watson by shooting the said Aaron
Watson with a firearm. There was no evidence that Pate was the primary actor, or that he
was present at the commission of the offense; See Jay con v. State, 651 SW 2d 803 -
Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 1983 showing same.
See generally Foreman and Jones, Submitting Law of Parties in a Texas Criminal
Prosecution, 33 Baylor Law Review 267 "It is not unusual for a charge to apply the
law of parties to the facts by an instruction allowing the jury to convict on finding that
defendant, either alone or acting as a party with another person, did the act charged
[citing Morrison and Blackwell, New Penal Code Forms, C-7. 01 at 100-01]. An
instruction of that kind is permissible if the evidence raises both the theory that the
defendant did the act charged and the theory that another person participated with
defendant in doing that act."
Pate's separate jury charge did not charge that Christopher Joseph Hall or some other
caused the death ofAaron Watson by intentionally or knowingly shooting the
said Aaron Watson with a firearm, and that another Party participated in doing the act.
The Guilty Jury Verdict is Unauthorized and Unconstitutional, and Pate has suffered a
complete miscarriage of Justice. The Prosecution did not object to the jury charge.
Nowhere in the Jury Charge is the Jury required to find that Christopher Hall, Michael
Jason Underwood, Kevin Tanton, or Anthony Ray committed any criminal acts, for
which Pate could be held responsible.
The Record on the Jury Trial is completely Void of any evidence that Pate
participated with Christopher Joseph Hall, Michael Jason Underwood, Kevin Ray
Tanton or Anthony Ray in the commission of the offense of Murder as a Party and
criminally responsible for others conduct by with intent to
solicit, encourage, direct, aid
or attempt to aid in the commission of murder. The Trial Court Record is Void of
evidence direct or circumstantial that Pate was criminally responsible for the conduct
of someone else that intentionally or knowingly caused Aaron Watson's death by
shooting him with a firearm.
The State did not prove intent to promote or soliciting, directing, aiding or attempting to
aid another in the commission of the offense of murder.
The elements of an overt act must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The
State must prove that at the time of the commission of the offense of Murder, that Pate
was present and intended to somehow assist the others, including the primary actor in
the commission of the offense of Murder. The Record on the Trial provides evidence
that Pate was Not present at the commission of the murder. There was no testimony or
evidence introduced that Pate was present at the commission of the murder, even the
accomplice witness's stated that he had limped off into the woods before they all
entered the victim's home and assaulted and murdered him. Texas Penal Code
provides that mere presence at the scene of the commission of the offense does not make
one a party to the offense. The Prosecution then must prove that Pate intended to
promote the murder by some overt act that encouraged or facilitated the commission of
the murder before it's commission. The only evidence offered that Pate intended to
promote the murder by some overt act to encourage or facilitate the commission of the
murder was the testimony of the (3) accomplice witness's who made a deal with the
Prosecution to testify against Pate and Hall.
Art. 38.14. TESTIMONY OF
ACCOMPLICE. A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice
unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the
offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the
commission of the offense. The offense in this case is
not just Texas Penal Code 19.02,
intentionally or knowingly causing the death ofAaron Watson by shooting him with a
firearm, it would be all the elements of Murder and all the elements of the Conduct of
Pate that would make him Criminally Responsible for the conduct of another person,
Texas Penal Code 7.01 & 7.02. Texas Penal Code 7.03 states: In a prosecution in
which an actor's criminal responsibility is based on the conduct of another, the actor
may be convicted on proof of commission of the offense and that he was a party to its
The elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt are : first, that a murder
was committed by another person by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of
Aaron Watson by shooting him with a firearm, and then Conduct by Pate that would
connect him to the Murder that would make him criminally responsible for another by
an Overt act of acting with intent to promote murder by soliciting,directing, assisting,
encouraging, aiding, or attempt to
aid another in the commission of Murder.
Because the only evidence on the Trial was testimony from
the 3 accomplices that Pate
was a party to the offense of Murder and criminally responsible for the conduct of
Another, by with intent to promote to solicit, encourage, assist, direct, aid or attempt
to aid another in the commission of Murder, that testimony must be eliminated. Article
38.14, V.A.C.C.P. " A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice
offense committed; (murder and an overt act to assist or etc
and the corroboration is
not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense".
The accomplice's testimony shows only the commission of Murder committed by
someone other than Pate, and that accomplice testimony is supported by other
testimony. The accomplice witness testimony that Pate was criminally responsible for
the conduct of someone else for the commission of Murder by with intent to promote
the murder he solicited, encouraged, directed, assisted, aided or attempted to aid in the
commission of Murder was not corroborated by any evidence.
The test is two part, to eliminate the
testimony of the 3 accomplices, that testified that
Pate was criminally responsible for the conduct of someone who intentionally or
knowingly caused Aaron Watson's death by shooting him with a firearm, and that Pate
committed some overt act described in Texas Penal Codes 7.02(2).
Then the second part would be to remove the conduct of those that Pate would be
criminally responsible, and find out if Pate's alleged conduct alone would support a
conviction. There is no evidence on the Trial Record supporting the submission of the
case to a Grand Jury on the theory that Pate was the Primary Actor or Acted As a Party
and criminally responsible for the conduct of another.
There is No evidence on the Trial Record to support a Jury Verdict that Pate
intentionally or knowingly caused Aaron Watson's death by shooting him with a
firearm, or was criminally responsible for the acts of a person that caused Aaron
Watson's death by with intent to promote the murder he assist in the commission of
murder he solicited, assisted, encouraged, directed, aided or attempted to aid the other
person. Texas Penal Code 7.01(a) and 7.02 (a) (2).
Judgment are Void.
Nema BardnyPetitioner pro se
for Applicant Chadrick Pate
1801 WestlakeDr.#112
bardinnema(S>yahoo.com
The Conviction, Sentence and
Wherefore premises considered, Pate prays for all relief from the illegal Judgment and
Conviction to include Acquital, and Immediate Release from Illegal Incarceration, and
any other relief available to him.
I, Nema Bardin hereby certify and swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
Application for Original Writ of Habeas Corpus was mailed to The Aransas County
District Attorney Clerk at 301 North Live Oak Street Rockport Texas 78382 on
this 3V day of September 2017.
Nema Barain Petitioner Pro Se
I, Nema Bardin Petitioner pro se of the foregoing Application for Original Writ of
Habeas Corpus , do certify that according to this computer generated document in Open
Office, the word count excluding: appendices, exhibits, cover pages table of contents,
table of authorities and certificate of compliance is 7,522.
UMJnfMX
iMA BARDfN petitioner pro se
bardinnema(g>yahoo.com
My name is Nema Bardin and I am the petitioner in the above and foregoing Original
Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I hereby swear that the allegations are true according to my
beliefs. SIGNED AND SWORN ON THE 3(b DAY OF SEPT 2017, FOR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND
NeiWBardm^etitioner
1801 WestIakeDr.#112
Nema Bardin, personally appeared and sworn to the facts in the above described
documents on the <^? day of September,2017.
JACKSON DEE LONG
=-^/JV_^Notary Public, State ofTexas
'$X-J%tM Comm. Expires 07-12-2021
^iStiy^
Notary ID 129485369
Техасский уголовный апелляционный суд
Документы, похожие на «Original Writ of Habeas Corpus Extrinsic Fraud and Actual Innocence Chadrick Pate»
Популярные на тему «Continuance»
Fred Marion Gilreath, Jr. v. Frederick J. Head, 234 F.3d 547, 11th Cir. (2000)
Federal Judge Seeks to Delay Speedy Trials Under Emergency Rules
Dy Teban Trading v. Peter c. Dy