Opinion ID: 4056183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: L.t-'..I...J..l ~\J\J

Text: 4-1\.J, 'J(\(\1.'1 ; , th;c;, 1 .1...1.1 ._ ..... ..._._. r~ ....,.L-4.._,_., 98. Applicant presents no credible evidence that records for this case were lost or destroyed. 99. Applicant presents no credible evidence that the records he alleges were lost or destroyed were ever recorded by a court reporter in this case. 100. Hon. Alford contacted the court reporter, Mr. Steve Schiller, regarding the alleged missing records. See Alford Affidavit, p. 1. 101. Mr. Steve Schiller advised Hon. Alford that the hearings Applicant was concerned about were on different cases and not this one. See Alford Affidavit, p. 1. 102. Applicant had four other cases pending in this court while this case was pending. [Supp. 1 RR 4] 103. While the instant case was pending, the trial court spent considerable court time conducting extensive pretrial hearings on a motion to suppress physical evidence in a possession of controlled substance case also pending against Applicant. Ground Twelve: Conviction obtained with the use of an involuntarily submitted statement. 104. Applicant did not complain on appeal that his statement was involuntary. See Calton v. State, 2005 WL 2082202, No. 02-04-228-CR (Tex. App.- Fort Worth Nov. 17 2005, pet. withdrawn)(not designated for publication). 105. Applicant presents no additional evidence that was ·needed before this issue could be litigated on direct appeal. 106. Applicant does not allege that the law has changed after appeal. 107. Applicant presents no credible evidence to support his claim that the statement was not voluntary. 11 57. The Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held the general rule is that claims raised and rejected on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(citations omitted). 58. The exceptions to this general mle are (1) when the record on direct appeal cannot be expected to be sufficient to resolve the claim (i.e. ineffective assistance .of counsel claims); (2) when the prior judgment has been rendered void; or (3) the Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to apply relief retroactively after a subsequent change in the law. Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(when the record is not sufficient)(citations omitted); Ex parte Drake, 883 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)(when the judgment is rendered void or retroactive relief after change in law). 59. Applicant presents no credible evidence, or argument, that the record on direct appeal was not sufficient to resolve whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. 60. Applicant presents no credible evidence, or argument, that the prior judgment against him has been rendered void. 61. Applicant presents no credible evidence, or argument, that there has been a change in applicable law. 62. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that alleged jury charge error can now be re- litigated in this application for writ of habeas corpus. 63. Applicant is barred from raising his requested jury charge claim in this application for writ of habeas corpus because it has been raised and rejected on direct appeal. See generally, Ex parte Drake, 883 S.W.2d at 215. 64. This Court recommends that Applicant's ninth ground for relief be DENIED. Ground Ten: Cumulative Error doctrine. 65. Applicant has failed to prove that the accumulation of his alleged errors presents a different claim for relief than the alleged errors. 66. This Court recommends that Applicant's tenth ground for relief be DENIED. Ground Eleven: Records lost or destroyed that were necessary for appeal. E~~t\,\t .. flA O{>f~~l1--. q{- ~ctf-e_ ~ 24 ________,___ 67. Applicant has failed to prove that the records he alleges were lost or destroyed should have been a part of the record in this case. 68. Applicant has failed to prove that records from this case were lost or destroyed. 69. This Court recommends that Applicant's eleventh ground for relief be DENIED. Ground Twelve: Conviction obtained with the use of an involuntarily submitted statement. 70. Article 11.07 usually may not be used to litigate matters which should have been raised on direct appeal. Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). 71. Claims found in the record will not be reviewed for the first time on writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)(op. on reh'g). The exceptions to these rules are (1) constitutional errors when the law has changed after appeal and (2) claims for which additional evidence is needed for factual development. See Ex parte Bravo, 702 S.W.2d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 72. Applicant presents no credible evidence that the law has changed since his appeal. 73. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that additional evidence was needed before this claim could have been raised on direct appeal. 74. Applicant's involuntary statement claim should have presented on direct appeal and is therefore may not be litigated now. See generally, Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). 75. This Court recorrunends that Applicant's twelfth ground for relief be DENIED. Grounds Thirteen and Twenty-One: Received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel during the thirty day time penodfor the .filing of a motion for new trial. 76. The standard of review for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims is the Strickland v. Washington test and is the same as the standard for ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 944 (Tex . . Crim. App. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 77. The two-prong test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington applies to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in non-capital cases. Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d E~\.,,,'~ \~ \1 G It 0--(>f~' ~ Ct \- ~ C 25 . ·- --------------------------- -· ---------------···- --· ----------- ---·- ·- ---- ~- -- ----- ------------------- March 29, 2012 Court Reporter's Certification Board P.O. Box 13131 Austin, Texas 78711-3131 Reference: In the Matter of Steve Schiller, Cause No. 12-4665-22 Dear Sirs, I am writing this letter in answer to a complaint made against me by Mr. Allen F. Ca!!:)l;.. To begin, let me state that I am no longerthe official reporter for the 213 1h District Court. I have no access to records or anything else the general public can't get. Mr. Calton's main complaint seems to be i:he fact that he is missing some pretrial hearings from his attempted murder trial that was held back in 2004 where Mr. Calton was found guilty and sentenced to a substantial length of time. My misunderstanding arose because we had been doing pretrial hearings on several of Mr. Calton's cases for somewhere around six months along with his attempted murder case. Mr. Calton was representing himself on a Motion to Suppress in two cases and was successful in excluding the evidence on both cases. At the time I prepared the record for appellate purposes for the attempted murder case, I went to the date where I thought the pretrial hearings for the attempted murder case at hand began, and I prepared those for the Reporter:' s J3..ecord. However, I was wrong about where those pretrial cases started. Some of them were hybrid, though not obvious, covering all his cases. Therefore I didn't transcribe. those since I didn't tl1ink they were relevant to the case at hand, the attempted mun.ler ease. As mentioned in Mr. Calton's complaint, I did have a conversation with Mr. Barry Alford, the appellate attorney, and I told him what I thought to be true at the time, thatthose pretrial hearings did not belong with the attempted murder case. Why would I lie to Mr. Alf The first notificatioil I had from anyone about this problem was when M:r:_. Calton sent me a letter containing some if not all of the allegations in his complaint filed with the Board. This trial was in 2004, some eight years ago. It took some time to go through archived records -~d..fm4 illY-.:--~-~·-~-- . . ;t Pl ... \ ·J, ~ l~ ·.... 1:. . .! . .·~ t r:-, ,\t ., • : l /~r\-;t::·,~ ),_,·,~~~~ \.! ;t ex~tbl~ i'v\ if ~·~1~ q~ ~Y.fJL I 0 t.~'t~, APR G5 201Z ·:_,L) . ·--· ----- ...~-- ------ -----------. ------------- - .. -- .... -- ' )·'\notes.-· Within about three to four days from the day- M~. Calton sent me the l~tt~~-~d before I could respond to him, I received the complaint from the Board. Even though payment arrangements have not been made, I went ahead and prepared four of the eight hearings he requested where I was the reporter. After an exhaustive search of my records, I am of the opinion that I was not the reporter on any of the remaining hearings, nor do I have any information concerning which reporters reported the other hearings or how to contact them. I did notice that Mr. Calton had their names as well as their license number. I contacted the District Clerk's office in Tarrant County, and they had no notation as to who the reporter was on those dates. At this point I don't know whatelse I can do. I have prepared the hearings that I did report. I could send them to him a.t this pcint; however the matter of payment would have to he di~cussed. Or should I hold on to these records until the preliminary hearing? Sincerely, Steve Schiller, CSR ------·--- ------------------ ·'--·- ---· Abel Acosta, Clerk VVR -65 ,590·16 DISTRICT CLERK TARRANT COUNTY. THOMAS WILDER 401 W BELKNAP FORT \NORTH.TX 76196 . Jlt n tll• ti IiI Ih\• I I I'Ill' ltl!l'nl' 1 lll I' I i 1111111' \mllnl' ,, -------------------------------------------------~~ ·)tr. SHARON KELLER COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABEL ACOSTA PRESIDING JUDGE CLERK P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION 512-463-1551 LAWRENCE E. MEYERS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 SIAN R. SCHILHAB TOM PRICE GENERAL COUNSEL PAUL WOMACK 512-463-t 597 CHERYL JOHNSON MIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY CATHY COCHRAN ELSA ALCALA JUDGES May 22, 2014 Alien Fitzgara!d Calton Michael Unit- TDC #1123880 P. 0. Box 4500 Tennessee Colony, TX 75886 RE: C-213-01 0079-0843168-K WR-65,590-17 Your letter has been received. Please be advised: IMPORTANT: PLEASE INFORM THIS COURT OF ALL ADDRESS CHANGES IN WRITING. D To obtain Copies of items requested, contact the State Law L:brary, Inmate Copy Service, at PO Box 12367, Austin Texas 78711-23267. Please be sure to include your full name and any aliases, TDCJ number, date of conviction, county of conviction, appeal number and complete mailing address. D Your records will not be returned to you because once records are received in the Court they become the permanent records of this Court. Your application for writ of habeas corpus has been received on Tuesday, January 21, 2014. The status is: Dismissed on 1/29i2014 because an abuse.of writ order has previously been entered. D Neither the Judges nor the staff of the Court can give legal advice. We recommend you contact Inmate Legal Serv1ces at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. D Your writ of habeas corpus has not been received in this court. Please contact the district court for the status of your case. D The Court of Criminal Appeals does not provide forms. Habeas forms may be obtained from the unit law library or contact the District Clerk of the county of your conviction. D Your change of address has been received and noted in-our system. Sincerely, Ab(lWW clerk Ex.~\~ \.,t- ::f 11 0{>(1-07·~, 1-- G-\ P~s.-e. (J SUPREME COURT BUILDING, 201 WEST 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTIN, TEXAS :78701 --- WEBSITE:·WWW:CCA~COURTS~S-T-ATE~T-XcUS------------ Case: 13-11083 Document: 00512467364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-11083 In re: ALLEN FITZGERALD CALTON, Movant Motion for an order authorizing the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.