Bruce Lynn Christensen v. State ( 2014 )

CLERK’S RECORD
VOLUME _1__ OF _1__
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2001CR4986
IN THE _226TH___ DISTRICT COURT
OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS,
HONORABLE SID HARLE, PRESIDING
BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN
VS
STATE OF TEXAS
DELIVERED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 4TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ON Wednesday, October 08, 2014.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT:
VINCENT DENNIS CALLAHAN
PO BOX 12141
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78212-0141
PHONE: 210/737-3404 FAX: 210/737-3404
DONNA KAY MCKINNEY
DISTRICT CLERK
BEXAR COUNTY
Cynthia Gomez
BY : /s/
CYNTHIA GOMEZ
APPEALS CLERK
1
CAUSE NO. 2001CR4986
BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN
DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VS. 226TH JUDICIAL
THE STATE OF TEXAS BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
INDEX
CLERK’S RECORD COVER SHEET.......................................................................... 1
INDEX............................................................................................................................ 2-3
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF
FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 ............................................................................... 4-22
FILE STAMPED ON 05-07-2012 PG 4******
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ................................................... 23-29
FILE STAMPED ON 06-09-2014 PG 23******
PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING – MOTION FOR BENCH
WARRANT ............................................................................................................. 30-108
FILE STAMPED ON 06-12-2014 PG 30******
ORDER .................................................................................................................. 109-118
SIGNED ON 06-13-2014 PG 118******
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ............................................... 119-125
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION .................................... 126-149
FILE STAMPED ON 06-18-2014 PG 126******
NOTICE OF APPEAL ......................................................................................... 150-151
FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 150******
DESIGNATION OF RECORD ........................................................................... 152-154
FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 152******
NOTICE OF APPEAL ......................................................................................... 155-156
FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 155******
DESIGNATION OF RECORD ........................................................................... 157-158
2
PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING – MOTION FOR BENCH
WARRANT .......................................................................................................... 159-173
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. 174
CRIMINAL APPEALS CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS ............................................................................. 175
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................ 176
3
FILED
___O'CLOC](~M
Case No. ~OD l ~L}0~ (p- 'tJ 3 MAY 0 7 2014
(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION
UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07
NAME: mu:E LYNII with. trial counsel he would have been"greatly.chilled in that
crosss" or as here unable to cross examine. In applicant's second writ the
court found that habeas counsel was effective and the CCA denied relief W/0
written order. The court in fact had no reason to review because under
then currept Texas apd Fj fth Circuit 12recedent, patently . unfair though it might be
the realalty facing a convicted Texas criminal defendantis that neirther
a negigent failure or even malicious refusal to present a potentially merit-
ious claim or even gross incomptence is the course of the defendant's state
habeas proceeding, effectively preculdes habeas review of that claim. At the
time of applicant's evidence hearing, a state habeas petitioner possessed
no, right to effective habeas counsel on any issues presented. Applicant made
every effort to to present to the court his complaint about the proformance
of his habeas counsel before the hearing. I'm sure that Mr. Callhan was
aware of his action's and his desired outcome. He knew he'would sufferno
legal consequences for his failure to properly plead and prove my ineffective
of counsel claim. The proposed finding of facts and law sUbmitted by Mr.
Callhan was so poorly done , that a first time jailhouse lawyer could have
done a better. job. · Allowing the courts to consider the mcomplete record
that ishis clients affidavits to be removed from the record and other-parts
altered shows he's planed POJlTING.GRoUND FOUR:
The court refused to allow defjindaot to havli his restJ;;QiliDts adjusted to
allow him to have full access to his legal notes and to be able to freely
confer and assist his habeas counsel. As defendant was asking the court for
this assistance, court appointed habeas counsel sat by doing nothing, refusing
to assist him with this action as it became apparent that he did not want him
to be able tu access his note:'! ana t:al
~ce c~stensen
Polunsky Unit ill08982
3872 FM 350 s.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
27
October 29, 2013
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
Sa11 Antonio, Toxas 78205
RE: @001-CR-4986-Ml-Aupp.
Dear Ms. Alice s. Gonzales
Thank you for re~ponding to my requact. There i.B some confusion
on what I rtceded~ It appe2rs to me t~at the court records are i11-
compl~5~eand also have beecl &ttl~e~Q. According to the Indsx, Th2
affidavit of Ms. Valada~ is licted and it locke like i_s't be011
is not actualy mi~siny~ I al2o ser1t a a~cor1d affidavit and it's
r~ot J.iated at all. Next on tt1e li~t is the Judges order wj.tlt 11 pages
pages ot exhibitao T~le in6cx doesn:t saj vhat tncse exhibits are~
I ~;~m tt·yi.ncj to CJB<> if thobe: inculderl any of the af:ld;o.v.i.ts. If so J
would nr:,cd
I also need to ?rove th~t
fto •• l6, 2006, and the court reporl&r has a tranvcript and co~ies
of the three affidavits or if you can find them, I need to prove
to
to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the need to supplement ~he record
ev~t· ..
with a affidavit from Ms McKinney of the facts of the case what @®II
they may be. I need to show due diligente in trying to set the re-
cord straight. Your assistance in this matte~ would be greatly
appr&ciated. I belive the this manipulation of the record is the
beggening of Ms. Valadaz's court house offenses. I will wrtle to the
court reporter also to see it he is going to respcndst.o my re~uest.
If you would possibily coordinate the search for these affidavits
with the court reporter. and let me know what you find.
Thank you for your time looking into this matter.
Sincerely,
28
Bruce t. Christensen
June 5, 2014
Donna Kay McKinny
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Ms McKinny,
Enclosed is my Second Writ of Mandamus, please file it and
bring it to the attention of the court. I have Ask Judge to
expedite this cause because I have already file my application
for 11.07 and the record that you forward to the court with the
11.07 will incomplete • I have also forwarded a copy to the
other respondants in C/O Criminal District Court Adminstrator.
Would you please assure that they are aware of the writ as I
have written them at the court house and they have not responded.
As you can see I believe that your court record has been comp-
remised by people that the court should be able to trust. We will
see. Thank you for your time on this matter and I'm looking
forward to hearing from you.
'k>~
.~~·-:?
Bruce Christensen
Pol unsky_un it-#-- H-08 9 82- _ _ - - - -
3872 Fm 350 s.
Livingstone, Tx. 77351
1!1lJ .....
= a
D
=
0
r·T1
<-
=
;;z: ~~~~ ...1:-~::
'"l:l I l);.";::::
c; ..0 ~'j-•-j-(1
_,
~ c;
sP·~·~D
..7."f11
~ u -.>...rTlA
-~:::v z
29 ~\ 1:,> -m::;o
c ... w lv
. -< .,
"' ::!:~'
_.,rn- ~
PETITION FOR EVIDENTARY HEARIN$·., .:.1£'S
fXt\\ll\1
34
,,.
PAGElt2; OF 60 f:;,
'
~-
while others were Aggravated Sexual Assault or Sexual Assault of a Child under Seventeen. Again
this had to do with the age of the child at the time of the alleged date.
" I advised my client that the Indictment alleged four (4) Aggravated Sexual Assaults, three
(3) Sexual Assault of a Child under Seventeen (17) and six (6) Indecency with a Child- Contact. I
also advised my client that the Aggravated Sexual Assault Counts, Sexual Assault Counts and the
Indecency with a Child counts all fell under Article 42.12 S 3g of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This section of the Code aggravated the punishment in that he had to serve a minimum ofhalfofthe
punishment before he would be eligible for paro !e. I also advised him regarding Deferred Adjudication
and or Probation in accordance with said Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
"Defendant entered one Plea ofNo Contest to his Indictment and submitted one Application·
fur Deferred Adjudication under one Cause Number. Defendant knew that he was going to receive
only one punishment for the whole indictment. Defendant plead NO La Contendere to avoid Stacked
sentences in the event of Jury convictions. Defendant was advised of the different degrees of charges
and punishment within the Indictment, but most importantly that all the Counts fell under the above
referenced Article.
"Defendant was aware of the high possibility for Jury Convictions and the· ,ikelihood of
stacked sentences and thus entered his plea freely and voluntarily. Defendant was advised that the
punishment he could receive ranged from T~o years to Ninety-nine years or Life or up to Ten years :
of Deferred Adjudication. Based on the entire Indictment, a plea bargain for a cap of Thirty-five
years, which included allowing Defendant to apply for Deferred Adjudication, was accepted by the
Defendant. I advised my client of the very slim chance for Deferred Adjudication and prepared him
for a prison sentence. At no time did I ever advise Defendant that all the Thirteen charges alleged
against him were Aggravated Sexual Assault. He was told that the punishment would be aggravated
35
in accordance with said Article fthe Code of Crimina! Procedure."
illLDAQ ALADEZ
Plaintiff
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on q.J_ (t 'by-~--,--
/
36
APP.EXIBIT
it 3
'AGE" OF 60
DUPLICATE
Court Name: TEXAS WESTERN
Division: 5
Receipt Number: 500022927
Cashier ID: dgarci
Transaction Date: 10/28/2013
Payer Name: TDCJ- INMATE TRUST FUND
----------------------------
PAPER COPIES
For: BRUCE CHRISTENSEN
Amount : $25.00
CHEC~
Check/Money Order Num: 598578
Amt Jendered: $25.00 (~
--------------------------------- ·-'
Tota.l Due: ~25.00
Total Tendered: 25.0.0
Change Amt : 0.00
(COPIES) ....
SA-07-CV-1008. BRUCE I '!NN
CHRISTENSEN V. DIREC I iJI~ TUCJ/CID
·NATHANIEL A. QUARTERMAN.
SA-08-CV-93. BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN
VHTLDA QUESADA VALDEZ 0 ATTORNEY AT
LAW; MARY BETH WELSH. oEXAR COUNTY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ET AL.
37
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2
Oct, H, 015 Filed 03/3~e~~ 7
, APP • EXIBIT
Judge Sld ~. Herl• ~It 4
22Bth Judicial Oiatrlot PG 7 OF:•Go
Bax.or County Courthouse
300 DelorOI!IB St.
San Antonic,.TX 78205
Inclcaed in ay Aaaponae to Ns. Valadez's ···A~ldavlt, which
I raolavad today the 11th due to her have bean given an iapropar
addraaa f'or ••· Please Di-isa ay ilotlon to anPqrc"• and allDw
. . to rile thla •f'f'ldavlt in raaponae. I sent all Df' the ••
pollee report• that· I had t you to be i,_,led ln my -orandua
ln support at" my appllcetlon. I hav.e raqueetad that the Oisrtlct
clark notll"y if, aha had reciaved ay Maeorcndua and the att9ch. .nts
aant the wMtc later. I have had no reeponae f'roa her and aha
raf'u••• to give thla daf'andant the ao•t aoa.an curtoday even
with the s.A.s,E. inculded eo •he ha• no • expense to aeil the
r,'lqUttat Inf'oraetion. So all I c•n hope ie that the Meao,.andu.
·,· ln eupport at" II)' appllcati on endh tchne sent a week late are
e pert ol' the I'Ue end hev• been lnculded in &lll881iHiilil thi•
prodaa. Thank you for you tiae and affort:a ~nvloved in thl•
a••••
...
AepectFully Bubllit:ed,
/)
'
I
79107-9696
38
J
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/~~~ 7
cau.
ta
NO. 1001-CI'I..........wi.·
--~jV--~~-~--~--------
E lC PART!!: IN TH« DISTRICT COURT
f !28th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
I
AFFIDAVIT
This sf'f'ldavit 1• Jn raepon- so HJlda Valada•'• •f'f'id.,h
reol•v•d by •• on the 11th dai or Oot4ber 200i 1 and •ak• 'Cha
f'ollowin~ a'Cat. . entc
Ma V•lad•z h••
onoe •g~in f'allad to prapperly inv•e'Ceg•t•
thi• oeee 'end the indiotaent end h . . •l•• li'Cated tha f'aat•• tha
indictment oher~ed • 'Cotal of tan count• with 'Cwo count• n•vlng
three per~-rephe describing thr•• dlf'f'•rcns ••Y• 'Co ooaait the
·~ cf'renc•. Th••• coun'C• ••r• coaalt•d in 1994 and 1995 1 and
the 1•• in •f'f'eot et tha tl . . •auld h•v• nos allowed tha•• ooub'Ca
to be et•cked.Bhe la corraot in tha'C thara ... shr•• eltne••••
•eking • campl•int, tha Plr•'C witn••• alleged that th• of'f'ena ..
ooooured in anat 1!195, 1!19__ , Th• indiat.ent da110rlb. . thr••
of'Fancae, wl.n thr•s leaesr inaulded cf'f'enc••• The •acond wltn•••
allegat:l the theo of'Panc" occourad in 1914 1 tha Jndta-li de•o,.lb. .
one inoid•nt 1 with two ,_,.tttS dif'f'er~~ aasns swo oa.alt the
of'f'enoe one being • lesaar lnouldad ohepog•, Tha thl,.d wltna ..
allaged that the of'f'enco oooau,..,d 11'1 19911 1 thl• wea alao liatad
•• two cpunta daacpolblng ana of'~enca. The f'i,.at (count f I)
oiM,.ea !,a ae_xiiUl -••ult w/chUd •• t:ha via~ I! ••• l'lf'tocn
•t t!w Her b lrt:hdtly • - tt•w_dey of'
tilll!!. 1 11184 0 . .
ahOan on the police poepc,.ta a~lt~~d by ~~~ of'f'loa~ aellad tt
'Cha her hoaa. Alae t:ha ~ff'idavit oF Oeseatlv• Malt.n. Thla
avldei'ID• ia '" tho court record and in applloa'C'a ·~po.ntfua ln
aupport of' applloatlon f'or wpoft:.
Oaf'endMt dld I'IOt C•- nat) sdvhad that the ••ntano- aara
to '"U" oonau,.rent: •• ahown on t~a plea t•ttttt• ba,.glan 1 page
101 1 oQUrt: poeaa,.d 1 or 'Chat th~ punleonaant ranga begaln at ~
Y••~, •• it J.a alaarly et:ated ln thlt aourt'• •cllaonla'-'t and
del'end•nt•a . . tvara .nri aff'ldavlt of adaonlt:lona, ~•g• 104-101
Court ftacord, that 'Ch~ punla~.nt poenga ••• 5 year• to S9 y••'"••
39
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 21
end .that .•11 th~•• oeunta agg~avatad 8aweul . . .eult or • Child
l"enel Coda • - · 22.01!'1. ell tt!raa count• • Pl~t: dag~- PalMY•
DePendent pleed t:o tt.rea oounta end ~••loved • thl~ty yea~ ,' ~
aantanoe f'or aeah '"""' ttt•ioh etta aau~t daoi•d Cor - t:h~e hael'lng ~ 11
trlll'laarlpt wlll ahow, that: the Judge •••-•d thet: the aant:enoaa ~
1111re to run concurrently end •ltd• notetlon to the rnrd wltho&n: H
coaeent rroe Me. Yalod~z or Mr, Sunk, ••• ~age t tt, Court:
l'leoord,
Mw yaledelr l'atlad t:o propper lnvhtwgeta the Jndicteant
•weinat tho defendant and to edviae hle ol' the d!l'l'arent chargee
and the di Fl'arent: renjjllls al' punlahiiOint ol' e.ah, nor wea aha
eee•r or the powsihle conqueneea or $H alloalng the o01.1rt to ataalc
tho -!'IteM•• ""'lot! •oul'!f '"'"""' t:han bean anouthar oapact of tho
plaed bargain Mt that -u!Sthaye b,... unottelnwbl"' Nnd ~"'••on Por
opp. . l. Thora ie no reeaon to ello• tho deFendant to plead guilty
to • first degree Felony when the charge la • eecand degree
Felony end accept ten yeere ~~• then allowed by lee, At no
tiee did ehe e$t ctete that the dsFendent ••• to reoleve one
eentence 1 Pact ie the record !a clear thet the dePendent plead
gullty end ~~laved thirty yeere an each count, See pege12 end
page___ , Court record.
Aa fer aa ~•· Veledez'e trial I l l prepertion end negotletione
elth the dletriot Attorney•• oi'F1ce, The only reason th•t the
dafendent'• pretrlel tie• reached fourteen eonthe le that ~.
Yel•dez dld not reecl: propperl)' when lt wee relized thet the
Grand Jury that hed indicted hla ••• It not peneled propperly.
ehe never e~n lnl'•reed hie thet lt heppened end the poeeible
ctregitiee poee.Lble Flaet ie ahe did no,\1: livlln lihiliw up in eciurt
the dey (Sept 10, 2001) when the atatae attorney stated Eome-
thinQ about needln~ to look et the 1nd1cteent, 18 whe dldnot
even began l:o negotet:e until! Neroh c~, 200e when the dePendent
hed.been lno•~••~•ted Par fourteen eonthe, ehe took advantage
ol' denandent•e eitueltion 8 end billed the oaurt two eaperete
Fee•• ror bean eppolnted couneal, She requeeted the eppoint•ent
or ., lmteategetor ehloh did nothing to 1nveeteget• del'enda~nte
oeee by lneteed epent hi• billeole ti . . ta e nather dePendent oF
14e. Votldlla&'ll " Mickel Tualter who ea .. char~ee elth Hurder, tf'
the doekat 11h11"~ (which Wile not enoluded ln the appllwl reoord)
would be lnveste~ated t It would ahae thst she Pelted to ~how
40
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 21
up ~o th• del'•ndent'• court d•t••• Wh•n h• ••k th• court p•r•onel
....,r.i.ut t:he where wbo:~ut• o, Me· Val..tez, th• oo-ent il11dtl "oh we11
thetHlldo", When t r•qu•etwd to •ee ~~ evldene~ egelnet . .
•he eteter.l 11eh'll tha di•trlat •t>tarnlf'•apeni'Ue pollc,. "'"'
lll.lf'l'iohnt, but that .t we• nat ellowttd to hsni,ile the f'ita,
II' t h~ ..................1$11 ~ndaretood the chargee egainet
•• and eaen the •vidence pr••entad, I would not have plead
to the ple., ba~(JIIln 1 all! pr ... <>!.'\"lt,ed, Th .. def'll!ndflnt la not eullt)l
or SC:OSI.. of tha .,., •.rgw.. "'""""nted to t.h .. lndtetm..nt. lfht>l'l I thoueh'll
waa child abuse and what tho law 1~ ere not the aeme, but
$$ whut 1 did do WUn'" ~bet thia h10op,.nnt th•t '~.t Plae • - no1: Fra.,ll! ijivln:ij.
But t"e ,._.ln F~tot i• Ms. Valodcur'" •nat&lllont th01t l;heN-cd
co~1l~in wltn•vses wa~ younger the~ fourteen an~ l•t•r 1 ln
.Jenu~try 2001 were yo..,:;oer than ,..,vente..,.,, le allil..tleda-:z
did in Feat advh111 1na to pll!!!>d OiUilt:y 1:<> '1111 thrlU.n char.;,fl~
biiCU!tUSel •ha bull.~v•d Chl'lt th-U:J all U!Jid• SOJd ,-:h~t: It '::1r-"tr.:k.t 0::<":JWM
to !, With witnes• onu~ber one. th~r 1~ •ix counts with
two containing th~es p8r9, ·~~~~ th~t t~~ o•F~~oe• ~~oour!d
in 1994, 199_, F.IP"ld ;"?Qf)-1, Tl-tP. wit~<7.::~ WFl'2 L'~""~~"!,.. t'""-=! gge oF 14
lrt 19'34 1~~9, snd ovt!!r" t~.,. !ide ~r 14 b'.it (J,.;,d~r- t!->·'!~ :::~,~~)
2001. 4 tote sl OF._§_ Cr:!UMt~ th~-t thl'! do;Fer'":f-H'!:t C~L•lr_! hi!ve
2. The ·~eond wrtM·,~e ~ll~Q~~ ~hDt ~M9
incident ooooured in 1995 and ~~)~ ws~ und~r tM~ ege o• Fourteen
Th~ indictment w~~ for On~ ~ryu~t oF •~8· 5~x~·~I -~~sult w/
chllkd and the $~cond ~nun~ w~~ fo~ ~ l~sa~r c~erg~ oF in~aoeny
with • ohild, De,endant could ~~v~ ~~~~ o~nv\~tg~ ~F o~ly o~•
cou~t. #. Th~ t[,ird wltne9~, (lind~~y ~~~~n) ~ll~l~j the
incent~nt o~cnur~d in 1ggg: ~n1 1~ f~r s~,~~u~ ,~s~ult ~n~
indency with child, She w~s eve~ tha ngs of fcurt~•n ant t~e
time or the incident whioh the g~~nd Ju~y h•d oh~rged d~,f~ndt
with baoBU118 h~r birthdey w•• or thR_day oF - - - - - ' .:.;!'14,~
42
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 21
PAGE TWO
If Me. Veladea'e atetaa that her trial atregy was to
av,~d ataekln~, ah~ nevsred inPormad me, ~nd it M spp~sr3 that
eh~ never invest~g~ted the law or thew Facta Involved In thla oaaa,
(woulcl l!ll;k the court to ask Ma. Valdaez to list ona witness,
elthar For the dafanee or the proouoution that she interviewed
a or to list one witn~~s tjet ~ppointed lnvaatagctar interview
etthmr For the defence or forth~ proc,, Defendant gave her
numareet names th~t at leset could have lnvervlawed as mlgeting
witneaa st Santancing, end ea the transcript ehowa I did not
know why there wes no witne~sea or evidence in the defendsnte
fever) but beck to the inveatagetion of the o•••••• Count
one oroorad in 1994 1 end count aeven cocored in 1995, I
did not brief it in my MeMorandum in auppcrt because it wes
not an iasue but the c.cp. waa revi~ed in 1997 to alow the
stacking of Sexeul offences that cecoured in a criminal
epaaicda. enFd if the court eocaopa Ma, Valadez's stetementa
involving the countg and the stacking of them as she atates,
then I would raquast to rebrieF my Memoramdum.
or to hold avidenceary hearing so that she may be II croee-
axeminad and let it be deloped for the record, Next Ms ..
·73rJ)
1
~·
:;:~:::.::·::: :::: :::.:·::::::.·:,:::·.::~ ::·.:·:::·,:;::. ~;;t
Cnoe again aha he• failed to invaetagats the record propperly ~\
agsin,, •• not all the counta that orocured in 1994 end Stte 1995
ere 3g,
sdvise given to the dafendent,
M~. Valadez dld recommend that thia da~endsnt plea to s ae
•aocnd degree charge that wee infect • second degree, and he
did reoieve an elegel ssnt~nce. She incorrectly atetea that
ell the wltnaaa were under the age oF fourteen et some point
during the elgeged lncedente. She Ia atlll oontandlng in
har atateman1! that her advise to the dafsndant waa to plea to
the ohargaa baceuse the witnee$se w~re all under the e;e of four-
teen at the tim~ or the inoedent£. The plea agreement end the
e edmonisMMenta that the defendant ai~nad did not contain
eny refel"enoeeo to the ocnviotlona running ooncurant with
each other,
43
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 21
"AGe: THf'll!e:
Ms. Valadez do~• not sn•were the aeoond question or
eddre•• .tha lftBny othfll,.. elege1:1r)ns m~ide by ths de:'-vende>.nt.
Like Fallin~ to shew him thA evidence to him thu~ the Gtatm
had !n It• Pile. Falling to ~newer~ hi~ queetlon ~baut the
C9Se ~t•tlng that Ph~ woul~ be back, th•t d~y she eleo had he~
daughter with her DMd ~he did ~~uBc ~ ddistw~benoe causlns
he~ to !!bandon her client with out nodce. Thllt "'he Feilec:!
to ~~sp eny eppointmant to e·~e ehv dcf2Mda~t ~t the jail, and
S! inPeovt n~v•r vleited the jell et ~1•. EGT, ECT ..
1 "'W al-ndez WBfl in fact in~ff~~t~.ve &rd eg~!·n rec~mmend
Sruee Lynn Chri~ten~9n
Cl~tment~r. Unit #111)8!:'82
9801 Spur 591
Amarillo, Tex~e 79107-9696
UN~WOAN O~~l~~~TJDN
I, Bruce ChrlAtensen, being bresently incmro~rated in
TOCJ-CIC, d~ol~re un~er re~~Ity o' ?erjLtry t~~t ~~~ r~r~;~lng
l!lffidevit is true end oorect.
79107-!!!95
44
APP. EXIBIT
II 5
PG 140F 60
GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS
OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Passed By The
REGULAR SESSION
of the
SEVENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE
Convened at the·
City of Austin, January 12, 1993
and
Adjourned May 31, 1993
Published under the Authority of The State of Texas
JOHN HANNAH, Jr.···------~-------~-- Secretary of State
The Office of~he Secretary of State does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
' religion, age or disability in employment or the prouision of services.
45
Ch. 900, § 1.01 73rd LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION 7
(b) When a single criminal action is based on more than one charging instrument wi_thin
the jurisdiction of the trial couri, the state shall file written notice of the action not less than c
30 days prior to the trial. t
1
(c) If a judgment of guilt is reversed, set aside, or vacated, and a new trial ordered, the
state may not prosecute in a single criminal action in the new trial any offense not joined in
the former prosecution unless evidence to establish probable guilt for that offense was not
known to the appropriate prosecuting official at the time the first prosecution commenced.
Sec. 3.03. SENTENCES FOR OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF SAME CRIMINAL
EPISODE. When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the
same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, sentence for each offense for
which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Such sentences shall run concurrently.
Sec. 3.04. SEVERANCE. (a) Whenever two or more offenses have been consolidated or
joined for trial under Section 3.02 [of this ooae], the defendant shall have a right to a
severance of the offenses.
(b) In the event of severance under this section, the provisions of Section 3.03 [of tl>io oode]
do not apply, and the court in its discretion may order the sentences to run either
concurrently or consecutively.
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY
Sec. 6.01, REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person
commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or
possession.
(b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing
possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to
terminate his control.
(c) A person who omits' to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as
defined by Section 1.07 [of tl>io eoae] provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise
provides that he has a duty to perform the act.
Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b) [of tl>is seotioR], a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense
requires.
(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable
mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental
element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is
nevertheless required under Subsection (b) [of thio oootioR], intent, knowledge, or reckless-
ness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to
lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence:
(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the
culpability charged.
Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts
intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the .nature of his conduct or to a result of his
conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the
result.
46
3592
73rd LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 900, § 1.01
(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation
charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reas~nable doubt that the defendant
or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.
(c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the
effective date of this code.
Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so
labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution .... "
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the
accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is
admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge
that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defimse in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this
chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense. ·
Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so
labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution ...."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative
defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless
evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court
shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defen•e by a preponderance of
evidence. '
Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. When this code or another penal law establishes a presump-
tion with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue
of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt
of the presumed fact; and · ·
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge ''
the jury, in terms of the presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as
follows:
(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt;
(B) that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the
element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C) that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise
to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption
for any purpose.
CHAPTER 3. MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS
Sec. 3.01. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "criminal episode" means the commission of
two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon
more than one person or item of property, under the following circumstances:
(1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to two or
more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme. or plan; or
(2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses.
Sec. 3.02. CONSOLIDATION AND JOINDER OF PROSECUTIONS. (a) A defendant
may be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal
episode. ·
3591
47
~OtD)
APP EXIBIT
TEXAS PENAL CODE II 6
PG l70F 60
Sub. Sec. 3.03. Sentences for Offences Arising Out Of Same Criminal Episode
(a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out
of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence
for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Except
as provided'by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently.
(b) If ~the .accused is
found guilty of more than one offence arising out of the
same crimin~sentences may run concurrently or consecutively if each sentence
is for a conviction of:
(1) an offense:
(A) Under Section 49.07 or 49.08, regardless of whether the accused
is convicted of violation of the same section more than once or is convicted
of violations of both sections; or
(B)for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused
was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regardless
of whether the accused is charged with violation of the same section more
than or is charged with violations of both sections;
(2) an offense:
(A) under Section 33.021 or an offense under Section 21.02, 21.11,
22.0ll, 22.021, 25.02, or 43.25 committed against a victimyounger than 17
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense regardless of whether
the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once
or is convicted of violations of more.than one section; or
(B) for which a plea agrement was reached in a case in which the
accused was charged with more than one ofense listed in Paragraph (A) committed
against a victum younger that 17 years of age at the time of the commission
of the violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations
of more than once or is charged with violations of more than one section;
(.3)an offense:
(A) under Section 21.15 or 43.26, regardless of whether the accused
is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted
of violations of both sections; or
(B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the
accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regard-
less of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more
than once or is charged with violations of both sections; or
(4) an offense for which the judgment is the case contains an affirmative finding
under Article 42.0197, Code of Criminal Procuder.
48
(b-1) Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to a defendant whose case was tran-
fered to the court under Section 54.02, Family Code.
1· Act 1973, 63rd Leg., P. 883 ch 399 §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
2. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch900, §1.01 1 eff. Sept. 1, 1994;
3. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch 596, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995
4. Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 667, § 2, eff. Sept 1 1 1997.
5. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 527, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
6. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 593 § 3.47eff. Sept. 1, ~2007
7. acts 2009, 8lst Leg., ch. 1130, § 21, eff. Sept. 1 1 2008;
l. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 9.\)0, which ammend the whole Penal Code, made no
apparent changes to this section.
2. Act 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 596 designated subsec. (a), and therein, in the second
sentence, substituded "Except a~ provided by Subsection (b), the "for such";
and added subsec. (b).
Section 2 Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch 5___, provides:
"(a) The change in law made by this Act applies to the joinder of prosecut-
ionsof offenses arising out of a single criminal episode only if each off
is committed on or after the effective date [Sept. 1, 1995] of this act.
For purposes of this section, an offense is committed before the effective
date of this Act if any element of the offense occures before the effective
date.
(b) The joinder of prosections for offenses arising out of a single criminal
episode if any of the offenses were committed before the changes made by this
Act, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose."
49
STATE COUNSEL FOR OFFENDERS
,,
lAPpEXIBIT
I 7
LEGAL HANDBOOK PG 1~ 60
PAROLE & MANDATORY SUPERVISION ELILIBILTY CHART
Offense Date 73rd Legisature 09/01/93 thur 08/28/95
3g Offenses: 1. Agg. Kidnapping
2. Agg. Sexaul Assault
3. Offenses with Affirmative Finding of Deadly Weapon
4. Indecency With a Child ( Sexal Conduct~Yl) ro:.)~ wt'il')
5. Murder ,.
6. Agg. Robbery
7. Capital Murder
Calender Time = 1/2, Minimum of 2 Years, Maximum of 30 Yearss
All Other Offenses:
Calender Time + Good Time = 1/4, Inculding work credits and bonus.
Maximum of 15 Years.
Mandatory Supervision Ineligible List
1. Capital Mueder
2. Muder, 1st Degree
3. Agg. Kidnapping
4. Agg. Robbery, 2nd Degree
5. Agg. Sexaul Assault
6. Robbery, 2nd Degree
7. Sexual Assault, 2nd Degree
8. Arson, 1st Degree
9. Agg. Assault, lst &2nd Degree
10. Injury to Child or Elderly, lst Degree
11. Burglary Punishment under Subsection d(2) or d(3)
12. Offenses with an Affirmative Finding of a Deadly Weapon
13. A Felony increased under Health and Safety code
481.134 (Drug Free Zones)
50
·."' .--
.,
pr6seqtiti(;)n.papers .
•
51
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB ·Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page20 of 21
<· ;.-";;··
~11asn~.eom.
•. ,, l • : f ' .. :
... , .
,~.
.. ·...
>' • • ••
. . "f.
.(i·
.. ,:."·
·.k)·:·
.·~¥F==±.~···o='¥~#~~c.2=.¥,
.. ·i. ·_:: .\·>/> . .:::. .·:· ..·,.. . ·:. ~
~:='=#"'=="
.. ·~·=;=~&Southwest . ·
.·,,
I'
!
i
"!
!,:··
f·
!
or
· ·.· : . ·.. ·.· • ~·
··i
·•'.
52
I ,
' ''
APP EXIBIT
II 9
PG 210F 60 -
November 4, 2002
Bruce Christensen
TDC# 1108982
Box38
Huntsville, TX 77344
Re: Appellant's Brief
Dear Mr. Christensen:
Enclosed please fmd a copy of the Appellate Brief to be filed in your case.
Additionally, I have enclosed the United States Supreme Court Case and the State of Texas
cases that controls your particular situation. The appellate courts frown upon appeals that
are referred to as "frivolous". This is not to say that your case is frivolous to you, .!2,9! l!!J.
jippeal is not the appropriate venue. There are other avenues you can pursue. You may.
prepare your own appellate brief, as well, if you believe mine is not satisfactory. Where I l
believe you have an issue, as reflected in the brief, is that your trial counsel should have (
purs~ed the motion t_o dis~ss the ind~ctment, notba. sed on the f~ct~atitw.as untimely, ~ut f'
that It wa~ from an nnproper grand JUlY BEFORE you were remdiCted. To do otherwise
reitders your issue mo.ot. You can pursu~ this ·in a Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus 1
that allo":s you to challenge issues based on constitutidnal due process violations 'and_)
ineffecj:iveness of counsel. You are entitled to review the appellate record of your case, if
you do desire t~ pursue these other avenues. However, my appointment to represent you is
completed
.
and you must ask the.
court for additional appointed counsel or prepare thesei 1
documents yourself. ~
Si=ly. ~) ~ 4S "v z
Suzanne Kramer
enclosures
lY '-' . -\. ·
1\1\P'-
Y ..l
'~1~,u'-··followed, this Court will not give permission to appeal.
1'04
54,.
(Page 249 t:.>f 253)
.
•'
....
• •
3. TRIAL RIGHTS
You have a right to trial by jury, cross examination of witnesses and the right to remain silent.
.' 4•. CITIZENSHIP
If you are not a U.S. citizen, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may result in deportation, exclusion
from admission to this country or denial of naturalization under federal law.
S. DEFERRED ADJUDICATION
If the Court defers adjudicating your guilt and places you under community supervision, on violation
of. any condition you may be arrested and detained as provided by law. You are then entitled to a hearing
limited to a determination by the Court of whether to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original
charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination. After adjudication of guilt, all proceedings
including the assessment of punishment and your right to appeal continue as if adjudication of guilt had not
been deferred. The Court is also able to assess the full range of punishment.
6. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION PROGRAM
A plea .of GUlLTY or NOLO CONTENDERE that results in a conviction or placement on deferred
adjudication for an offense under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will require you to
register as a sex offender with local law enforcement officials as required by Chapter 62 .. You will also be·
required to report regularly and to obtain or maintain a Tex.as driver's license or certificate of identification
identifying you as a sex offender. Violation of the registration and/or reporting requirements will subject
you to additional criminal charges.
DEFENDANT'S WAIVERS AND AFFIDAVIT OF ADMONITIONS:
....... TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
I, 'ir.. '• · a,.\f~,.lte,J , the Defendant in this cause, having this day appeared in .
~;;,:~ open court v{ith my counsel and having been duly sworn, represent to the Court that I have received acopy
of the indictment or information in this cause, that I fully understand its contents; that I knovv that I am
;;~~~ charged with the felony offense of l}.lj,j. rio~ .. "' Ar.r.,. Ur of c..l.al( J('~"'"9'and that I waive
11.. . . formal arraignment and the reading of the charging instrument. ·
,,
''""~ I, the Defendant, hereby enter a plea of GUILTY~ CONTE~ to this charge..
"II
I. I have had my Constitutional and legal rights explained to me by my attorney, and have decided
to waive my Constitutional right of trial by jury and enter this plea before the judge. I hereby
request the consent and approval of the State's Attorney and of the Court io my waiver of trial by
jury. I further represent to the Court as follows:
::)::· . 2. I am mentally competent now and was legally sane at the time that this offense was committed.
'
1115
,.
55 2
(Page 250 <'Jif 253)
•• •
3. I have 1'\0t been threatened, coerced or placed in fear by any person to induce me to enter my plea.
4. If I have a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor, its terms are fully set forth in the attached
document. I have received no promise from the prosecutm:, my attorney or the Court which are not
:set fgrth in ·that document, imd l rea!'ize that no one els·e would be empowered to make me any
promises.· : : ·. . · · · · · · . . .: : . .. · · . · . . •
5. Ifl am pleading GUlL TY, it is because I am guilty, and for no other reason. If my plea is one
of NOLO CONTENDERE, it is because 1 have considered all aspects of my legal situation and
discussed them with my attorney and have determined that the entry of such plea is in my own best
interest.
6. If appli'cable, my attorney has explained to me the requirements and consequences of Chapter 62
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sex Offender Registration Program.
7.. I understand the Courts admonishments as contained in this waiver.
8. I am satisfied with the advice and representation of my attorney in this case. '·
DEFENDANT
SWORN TOtAND SUBSCRIBED ME THIS • . , 200 ~
. ~0~:.~·~T!.r~ ~ ..· ' ~ .:5~~
· . 3~ ( ')--_J.~~··, DISTRICT CLERK · . ~
d".]t
~i::i{l .thi~i.~s
•'"11..
........
ICit
I have counseled with the Defen . d ,liavejj oncluded that the Defendant has a
:~~;;11 ratio~al, as well as a fa~tual und:rstandink)-~f~~tl):, t~e..~~~ ge(s~nding. and this ~roceed~ng. I have
..~···· explamed.the law regardmg all wa1vers set fo~1n-ily1 dllfPmenwa am sattsfied that m each mstance the
defendant has voluntarily relinquished a known ligh_s--~~[(e Defendant's waiver of the right of trial
ICh
;:;;:~:
by jury. lfapplicable, I have explained to my client tfietrequirements and consequences of Chapter 62 of
'/tll\p
IJ::_jt. the. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sex Offender Registration Program.
~......
li":.:\1
···;r··
'11
Ai/o~o~E~~~f&To
:a:
I consent to and approve the jury \yaiver in this case.
!\::::,.
(;~
11::)1
II::~;;
•'J·
::E;~
-·
56
,.
I approve ~he jury waiver and ORDER it filed in the papers of the cause. It plainly appearing that
the Defendant is mentally competent; that his waivers have been entered voluntarily, in full knowledge of
his rights; that the admonishment of the Court have been understood by the Defendant; that the Defendant's
plea has not been induced by improper persuasion; and that the Defendant persist in his plea, the
Defendant's plea is now accepted by the Court and the balance of this document is likewise ORDERED·
· filed among the papers of the cause. . r Jrd· 41 •. • J. .
SIGNED and ENTERED this .. :21 .f.!& day of_....~_~c...:__::___:c..:.....!._ _ _, 20_b_~ .
JUDGE PRESIDING
;
~c:tl
·"'II"
........
1!::::11
:~:::tu
........
()t
::;;:1!:
\\tl'
·11::::11
II"""
11::::11
'";(1''
"II
::::;!::
u:::!l·
li'"'••
"•i'l
11::)1
11!:::;;
'"'II·
:~;~;u
'
1·17 4
57
(Page 239 r,)f 253)
:.,
• CAUSENO.~CR 1../~81,
PLEA BARGAIN •
. ,1. the undersigned Defendant, togelller whh my counsel and counsel for the State. agree that in exchange for the Defendant's agreemen1 to
plead guilty or nolo contendere, to allow the State to prove its case by means of written stipulalions. The State may make recommendations regarding
punishment: how~ver. it is· understood by all that even in the event the parties agree to recommend specific condhions and terms of community
supervision or dererred adjudication or the length of supervision that such recommendations are not part of the formal plea agreement and are not
binding on the Court. All parties understand and agree that the terms. conditions and length of supervision of community supervision or deferred
adjudication are to be determined and assessed solely within the Court's discretiOn. ft is further understood and agreed by the parties that in the event
the CoOn assessed tenns, conditions and or a length of supervision or community supervision or deferred adjudicarion different from those agreed to
by the parties, that such difference shall.not constirute grounds fo~ selling aside the Defendant's plea in this cause. If the court grants "deferred.
acljudicatlon, the Stale does not recommend any lenn of years as part of the plea agreement. AU parties agree that If deferred adjudication
J.. subseq.iently revoked,·Defendant may be sentenced lo any tenn of years within the range of punishment provided by law for thiS ofrense.
It is mutually agreed and recommended by the parties;
../' Prosecution to prooeed only on Count(s) k, ~ JJ=" Prosecution for lesser included offense of _ _ _ _ __
_ _ Defendant agrees that he has been previously convicted of one/rwo ot more felonies for enhancemen~ under 12.42 P.C.
_Class A Misdemeanor punishment with State jail Felony Conviction under 12.41 P.C.
· / . Punishment to be asses.•:~ at 1 <;" years
._7
__ FineS I 1>1!>1 -
_ _ Aftlrmative Finding of Deadly Weapon or 3G offense, Defendant not eligible for supervision under CCP 42.12, Sec. 3.
_ _ There is no application 'roi community supervision/deferred adjudicalion .
. _L Stare will make no recommendation or"Defendant's deferred adjudieationlcommunity ,supervision application. Stare reserves right
to speak as to facrual issues relevant to Defendant's punishment.
_ _ State. opposes co.mmunity supervision/dererred adjudication. _ _ _ _ _ _ Concurrent wirh: - - - - - - - - - - -
--State recommends community supervision.
_ _ State rec:~mme.nds dererred adjudication.
Causes taken into c o n s i d e r a t i o n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--Restitution to be determined by the Court through the Community Supervision office o r $ ' - - - - - - - - - - - - -
___ Payable to victim in this cause number only:
-==-Payable·rOYictims under: ~ ---'\...
'=' _Loth\,.__ tiP Chi1A&'1" c&"!'•~cn•ID~Y· eager~, 0ACI~to~t.. car2r.rDA,..U~ WA-" t;r~~''
~::a..
.... ..
~
The above terms tonsdtu.te our agreement, and the1e are-no-agreemenLS not set fonh above. The Defendant and Counsel request the Court
O:::ib follow the plea bargain.
::--;:;;'11
.....
tl::) . ~
~~~
\:1,SSIS
?t-!)4/<=>--
DEFENDANT
•:::n
II_
N.Qlf;: Th~ panies ~re not allowed to make binding agree~ent. s reg.arding the len~ or community ~upervision or th<; terms and conditions
0
,::-of community superv1s1on. wh1ch are totally dependent upon lhe Courts d1screuon. The folJowrng recommendations do not consurure part of lhe ronnal
Jt~a agreement. However. the (State) (both panies) make the foltowing non-binding recommendations: ·
___ Community Supervision be granted for ____. years
Restirution Center ___ Days in Bexar County Jail or State Jail (circle one)
___ Hours Community Servite ___ Substance abuse treatment facility
___ Days Electronic ~lonitoring _ Days Community Corrections Facility
No contoct w i t h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Punishment recommendations: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~------------------------------------------
58
(Pa~e 240 ~f 253)
.,
• •
APPliCATION FOR DEFERRED ADJUDICATION OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (NON JURY)
. 'THE S.~ATE OF TEXAS NO. d CX){ Cl\/ 49fffe IN THE 228th · DISTRICT COURT
OF
. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
...
Ncm comes the defendant, , In the above styled and
numbered cause and says that In the event of a lea of guilty or nolo contendere and after the Court recelves
such plea, hears the evidence and finds It substantiates the defendants g·um, the defendant prays the Court to
defer further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and_place the defendant on community
supervision In accordance with the provision·s. of. Section 5 (a) of Article 42.12, Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. · · · ··
· IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Defendant prays the Court that in the event of his conviction in this case and
if his punishment is assessed at a jlerlod not exceeding ten (10) years confinement In the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, or a period in the· state Jail Facility, he/she be placed on community
supervision under the applicable provisions of Article .42.1~. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
I acknowledge that, as relates to my application for deferred adjudication, I have been advised by the
Court that If adjudication of my guilt is deferred, and J am placed on community supervision, on violation of any
condition of community supervision I may be arrested and detained just as any other alleged community
supervision violator and I will be entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the Court of whether It
proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination.
After an adjudication of gui~, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence,
granting of community supervision and defendant's appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been
deferred. · · i ·\
"-~·
/
/
lJO
59,.
~. 1·ilq m~
. '
(Page 244 ~•f 253)
:.~
• •
·-··~
'
......
I ,",,
. '
• .- \..
CAUSE NO. too I -CR-_'1....!..!.4i.1<.6.=.."-----
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COU,RT
§
vs.. § 'l.l." JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
· g,. .. ~e Ct..-: r.fe.tel{ § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS •
WAIVER, CONSENT TO STIPULATION
OF TESTIMONY AND STIPULATIONS
The Defendant in this cause, being sworn and having read the indictment or had it read to him,
advises the Court that he fully und~tands the charge which is pending against him, and Com1sel for the
Defendant has explained the Federal and State Constitutional and legal rights possessed by a criminal
defendant, including the procedural rights and safeguards afforded.by the laws of the State of Texas.
In particular, Counsel has explained and the Defendant understands the privilege against self-
incrimination, the confrontation and cross-examination of the witness.
'
Understanding all these rights, the Defendant knoWingly and voluntarily agrees to waive each such
right and consents to waive the appearance, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses agairist the
Defendant; further, the Defendant and his Counsel agree with the Attorney for the State to the introduction
of evidence on behalfofthe State by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, police reports, laboratory
reports and any other documentruY evidence which is-attached, mark~ Exhiblt Nos. :t, Ylf, 1'(. inclusi~e,
all of which are by this refere~ce made a part of this documenl The Defendant, his Counsel and the State's
Attorney agree that this evidence is true and correct, that the Defendant is the person referreq to by the
witness in the attached documents, that if the witnesses testified they would identify the Defendant as the
person of whom they speak, and that this document and its attachments may be considered as a part of the
Statement of Facts in this case.
,.
60
(Pa~ 245 ,of 253)
''
• ••
. do hereby judicially confess and admit, that I
intentionally and knowingly, in Bexar County, Texas on .:.·_~o~~-~A~~~.. ~L~l:!:l~-4.:...,__ _ _...:;~2!t9~9~Q,
. CC.UNT I .. . r. \ . \.
;,.:.:-:--- ' '' . . ;. \\ ~- ...... ·._. ;...:· ~~. ·.• . '
:--
31ST- day of AUGUST, A.O., 1994, ·BRUCE Ci-!RISTENS!;:N, _heteinafter·
r:~f~r'red :to _a,. l)efend.-hj;,··di~ _then .and ther\e ln~entfon'~lly,and · f--
knowl,rigly ce the penetrataon .of the FEMA~E SEXL)AL:,;ORGAN ~~f . 1
ROXANNE pZE.TTELLA, hereinafter:; referred to ·a13 .·.tt\e ·!=_~(ljp li!l.flI
----------------------------
---------------------_,_,
64
oFFICIAL NOTICE FROM coURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
i':-'
P.O. BOX !2308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
RE: wr:i·t ·No. um-58 1 369-·06
~TYLE: Ciffii::JTENSEII 1 BRUCE LYNN
TRIAl, CT l•JO: 2001CR4986-W2
Thifl is to advi.f!e that the coc•r·t has denied vJithout "titten or:det
10/31/2007
thE• application for ~;.:Lit
of habea" corpue.
Di~Jti:ict. Clt?:r.:k B1e.;.;:ar: countY
Hargaret G. 'Montema-yor.:-
1.00 Dolor:osa, Room 362
S'll1 ll\i\t.OJ"I~o,I\\ 'J!l(
\\Ill\\ 11111.\1iil I 111\1\\1
IIJZD\"' ·
I \\.11 I\hI II I\\ 11\11111\\ n\1\
65
', APP EXIBIT
1
11 13
April 22, 2013
, -
',PG 340F 60
Judge Sid Harle
226th District COUrt
Bexar County Courthouse
300 Dolorosa St.
san Antonio, Texas 78205
Dear Judge Harle,
I wrote to you in Sept. 2012, and asked if you had a "Working File" on my
case. The reason I asked is over the years there are some thin9s that did not
make i t into the record. For example, the letter that I wrote to you from
Bexar county Jail that you took as my notice that I wanted to appeal my case.
The PSI used in my sentencing hearing and other things. What I'm looking for
specifically is copies of the affidavits sent to you in Sept-act. 2006 by your
order, one from Ms. Valadez and two from me. The reason that I wrote to you
in Sept. was to see if I could find them, but more so; I had read what you were
quoted as sayl.ng in the newspaper during the Morton Court of Inquiry. You said
"Our .job is not just to prosecute and win cases; our job is to do just~ce•"
You
.
also said, "the allegation agaihst: Anderson is that he iritentioJMir!~)nd
' .. ,,/-''
''",
knowingly concealed exc::ulpatory evidence. I personally cannot imagine having
been a former prosecutor, a worse stain or tarnish on a prosecutor and a public
servants Reputation, his Integity, and his Legacy." There was something else
you said about the justice system not being perfect but that is the best we
have ••• or something to tnat effect. I still believe to this day in the jus-
tice system of our country, at least I •m still trying, but when the system is
not balanced properly, things ge> wrong, which brings me to my case. Things
did go wrong but the system tried to correct the mf stakes. Your lionor, in
the CCI? 11.07, it talks about resolving issues, one way is to use your personal
recollection. I am asking you to use your personal recollection about those
affidavits. When you ordered tl'lem you said when you received them you were
going to forward everything
·,.
'.'
to the cilurt in Austin. But I believe that wl'len
you received them~ reviewed them, you saili that Ms. Valadez had done a
horriblEf job on her affidavit, and that I wasfable to poitlt out many thi119s
that she still had wro119. Again I believe that after the affidavits you had
"grave doubt" meaning the matter is so "evenly balanced" (even though Ms •. valadez
has a preliiumed deference) a$ to wl'lether h~ errors hM a sUbstance and injuri(;\us
effect .... So you then ordered an evidence hearirig and appointed counsel.
66
2
Your Honor, this is wJ~re things get to be a little sticky. I'm asking if you
remember those affidavits (all three) and if my statement about them is correct.
one frivolous item in Ms. Valadez •s affidavit was that she used the word arduous.
"after 14 months of arduous trial prep • • • and in my affidavit I said she didn • t
know the meaning of arduous. • • • Well, YOI,lr Honor, if you will look at the record
of my habeas corpus you will find that Ms. Valadez's affidavit has been redacted
and her mistakes corrected, the word arduous has been changed to "hard work",
you might ask why someone might have Changed her affidavit when mine is there
and it wouldnot make ar1Y 15~e, arguing 1=hat 11he doesn't know the meaning of
the word •••• Well again looking into the record you will find that the affidavit
received and file marked oot. 23, 2006 and my sup. affidavit are both missing
from the file. I believe that Ms. Welsh, the State's attorney (who had been
terminated by the District Attorney's office), did every thing to cover for
her friend, Ms. Valadez, and to save her job. TOday, she is still employed
by the D.A. I believe that Ms. Welsh and Ms. Valadez fol'llled a criminal conspir-
acy with t4r. D. Callahan who were not only work associates, but social cronies,
and affectionate friends. Mr. Callahan appeared to me as a dependable profes-
sional attorney with Christian values. But in fact he ambushed my hearing, his
representation was a farce rendering the hearing a sham. I had a substantial
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.: But he did not call Ms. Valadez
to testify, he presented none of the issue.s that I claimed, such as her advice
that the state could stack my sentences. I will point out two pieces of evi-
'
dance, one, the P.C. sec. 3.01: one criminal episode prosecuted in a single
criminal action, such sentences SHALL run concurrently. P.C.eff. Sept. l, 1994,
73rd LEG.REG.SESSI922 S.W.2d 181,
182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), where the parties plea bargained for an illegal
69
\
Bruce L. Christensen Page2
November 20, 2006
sentence, the appropriate remedy is to return the parties to the positions occupied
prior to the plea bargain agreement. In short, you will again face trial on Count
Nine. But see: Ex parte Montgomery, 571 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980) the remedy for an excessive sentence on a plea of guilty, with the court
assessing punishment, is a remand back to the trial court for assessment of
punishment within the legal range. The prosecutor may argue for a mere
reformation of the sentence on Count Nine.
The essential requisite in attacking your pleas of no contest on the ground of
ineffective assistance of counsel is a showing (you should testify) that the pleas
were unknowing and involuntary. See: Glaze v. State, 675 S.W.2d 768, 769 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1984). In Ex parte Smith, 678 S.\Y. 2d 78, 79 (Tex Crim. App. 1984),
where the defendant entered a guilty plea based on an incorrect admonishment of
the range of punishment, albeit hereby the court, said plea was not entered
voluntarily and knowingly.
The difficulty will be persuading the judicial fact fmder that you are
speaking truthfully; your then lawyer has indicated to me that she denies telling
you that you had 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault. If the judicial fact finder
disbelieves you, you will not prevail.
Regarding my advice: Think about what is your ultimate reasonable goal in
stirring up highly adverse facts which, if believed, suggest that you did receive a
bargain for your pleas.
I will see you when you are transferred to the Bexar County Adult Detention
Center. Feel free to write to me. I will stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Vincent D. Callahan
VDC/ar
70
71
Nov. 27, 2006
.·APP EXIBIT
Vincent 0. Callahan ,-- il 1,6
Attorney at law ,PG4>0F 60
P. 0 • 8 OX 1214 1
Sen Antonio, Tx 78212
Dear Mr. Callahan,
Recieved your letter regarding your appointment and the hearing
on the 11th of Dec. and I'm l;ooking forward to meeting you. If
you would please insure that a benchwarrent has been issued and
that i'm transfered to San Antonio,as I have seen many times in
the past that defendants are still in custody with TOC and not
in the city for the hearing. There are things that need to be
devloped for the record regsrding my attorney's ineffective assost-
ance of counsel. Also theer are reasons and an ''ultimate goal in
stirring up highly adverse facts" which I will discuss with you
in person, I will say this what I believed I was pleading to and
the some of the facts, end even the law which I did not lnow or
was r.IOt 1 • d
~g exp e1ne to me, ere three completely different things.
One thing that i do not find in your statements ere the cases
like Miller v. State, that I cited in by Meromarendem and oth~r
cases that stated that if one part of a plea is not attainable then
the entire ples is invalid. The state wanted and did expect a
sentence of atleast 35 years and also Ms Valadez did advise me on
atleast one count, m the one that I plead to, that it was a first
degree Fenley with a sentence range of 5 to 99, That much is totally
obvious from the record. Even from her statement with the record
infrount of her she di not correctly break down the counts and
charges.
One last thing, there are two witnesses that I would like to
be present. One is the Privste Investagoter that was appointed
to my case end the other is one of the victums, Lindsey Green, B~
her mom is my sister and address is8330 Slippery Rock,,San Antonio
78251, Phone 256-1808, The last I heard Lindasy is a student at
UT in Austin, It will probabley that e court order for her to be
there, read her statement givin to The Dective, read it like a
defence ettorn3y and then think of the question that you would
ask her, even before the trial ••.. ! did not see this statement
until even after my appeal to the 4th court of eppeals •.•• or more
than three-fourths of the file ..
72
........
December 4, 2DD6
APP EXIBIT
Vincent.D. C!llehen ll 17
Attorne~ et Lew PG41. OF 60
p • D • 8 OX 12141
Sen Antonio, TX 78212
Deer Mr. Cellahen,
This is to let you know that I feel that my appearing in
person is the only way that my right to be heard in a meaningful
manner can be accomplished, as Me Valadez will appear in person
and testify, the court should be able to see my ni person so thet
the Fact Finder may see how I act and react in decieding the truth
which will come down ·to he said, she said. I .also feel that I need
to be there to convwy the required information to you eo that the
areas you are not Familaure with can be explored and develpoed For
the record. The court's refusing to allow me an opporunty to
partipate properly at this hearing would prevent me From presenting
my case propperly to the appeal's court.
So please, you should recieve this on Thur or Friday,with
time to make sure that I'm present on Monday.
Very Truly Yours
Christensen
W.P. Clemente #1108982
96D1 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 791D7
73
APP EXIBIT
t 18
PC'. 42()F 60
Vincent D. Callahan
Attorney
Laurel Heights Station
P. 0. Box 12141
San Antonio TX 78212-3007
Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404
December 5, 2006
Ms. Lindsey Green
8330 Slippery Rock
San Antonio TX 78251
RE: Writ Hearing, December 11,2006 10:00 a.m. in Magistrate's Court
State v. Bruce Christensen, No. 2001-CR-4986
226th District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Dear Ms. Green:
I have been appointed to represent Mr. Christensen in the above
matter. You do not have to confer with me. However, if you wish to recant
or withdraw your allegation against Mr. Christensen, as alleged in the
Indictment, that he sexually assaulted you on or about December 23, 1999,
please either attend said hearing, or inform me or the prosecutor in writing.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
/sf
Vincent D. Callahan
VDC/ar
Cc:
Yvonne Gonzales
Assistant District Attorney
300 Dolorosa
San Antonio TX 78205
\ 74
75
76
77
' '
78
79
80
Vincent D. Callahan , 1\PP EXIBIT
', 11 22
Attorney c-PG 49 OF 60
Laurel Heights Station
P. 0. Box 12141
San Antonio TX 78212-3007
Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404
February 12, 2007
Bruce Christensen # 1108982
Byrd Unit
21 FM247
Huntsville TX 77320
RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus
No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals No. 2001-CR-4986
226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Dear Mr. Christensen:
I received your letter postmarked 2/2/07.
Under separate cover, I am again sending you copies of:
1. Remand Order of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dated 8/30/06;
2. Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
3. State's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Applicant's
Writ of Habeas Corpus; and
4. Supplemental Order of Criminal Law Magistrate dated 12/21/06.
I do not possess copies of the trial court's file or of the writ hearing
transcript which is in possession of the Bexar County District Clerk.
Your case has been properly presented to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals; when it rules I will immediately send you a copy.
The high court has not ordered me to withdraw from your case.
81
Page2
Bruce Christensen
February 12, 2007
I will stay in touch.
Sincerely,
~tM!I())f~
Vincent D. Callahan
VDC/ar
Cc:
Ms. Marge Churchill, Investigator
Texas State Bar
126 E Nueva, Suite 200
San Antonio TX 78204
82
Feb. 23, 07
Vincent D. Callahan
P.D.Bcx 12141
Sen Antonio, Tx 78212-3404
Dear Mr. Callahan,
I reoievecl your le~ter postmarked 2/12/07 Which I just
reoieved as I have been moved asain by TDCJ to Amarillo.Please
note the correct address as Cle~ents Unit, 9601 Spur S@ 591
Amarillo, Tx 79107. ~s ! ~ecie~ed copieE oF ~he Feu~ Items
yaut"' ere giong to resend t·o rne, why not just send me the t:hngs
that you di have like the Exhibit tm. 1, 2, 3, 8 4 That the
srtate entered into the record and did give you copies that you
placed in you Folder without l.ett:ing me eee. Also send me the
requested proouders and deadlines to them Fer any writ , memD-
cramdum, or motion that could be Filed in the high court, because
oF the Lew magiatrate•s obs~rvar.ce (obvisious disragard)For
the law end case president. His allowing Hilda's lack cF appearance
so that the reccrd msy have bee~ Fully investagated and placed
ian the record. Your lack oF r~gard Fer my request For two
witnesses companded the problem, end your statement that there
were no Favorable wi tneeses ta my ac·t:ua1 i11conce claim, I asllc
you \'!ho did do in-terview or intsvste.gete tc ccme to his con-
elusion???? Besicelly I believe that you were nnt propperly
prepared Fer the hearing Ol" t;hat you never intended to attempt
to ~~~* qualiFy ms Valadez•~ ineFFective assistance. next,
whether or net to remand the ent.ire case or just count 9. The
court has said, ''you cannot plead to an illegal sentence ••••
and ir i t is an neg. plea it can ,.,ot be disturbed just part oF
83
Peg!! 2
the bargain See Shannon 708 S.W.2d 809, Beck as you cited and simms
808 sw 2d 803. and Adkins 767 S.W.2d 809.
I beli~ve that I Feel in to the t~ap that men deFandant~s
do at thie~ 11.07 hearings the case and oth2r ~vidence is not
propper placed into the record For the high Court to aee and
revieiN~ Hilda out right lied in her aFidavt!!!d and everybody
knows that she did havs dona everything to procect her, You, the
District Attcrr.ey, and ~udge Crauthers. Any witnssa rrom the
state's witness list end expecially my owr1 court appoin·ted invss"t-
agator- Even Hilda could have been called to tesif abut my actual
innocence. So I ask you as you are still my attorney, what
d~ I need to do to correct the situtation. Or iF I have to re-
rile anouther 11.07 or wait and appeal the remand to resentence
or remand to answere the indictment jus·t For coun 9. Next, iT
_I have to what do i need to lift the time bar on Filling My
~ederal writ 2254. So heree you chance, Act like my attorney
~nc3,
~ )l;: . .
Bruce Chriete~ #1108982
W.P. Clements unit
91i!li Spur 591
Amarillo, Tx 79107
Cc:
Me. Marge Churogill, Investigator
Texas State Bar
126 E. Nueva, Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 78204
84
Vincent D. Callahan
Attorney
Laurel Heights Station
P. 0. Box 12141
San Antonio TX 78212-3007
Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404
March 7, 2007
Bruce Christianson # 1108982
W P Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo TX 70107
RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus
No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals No. 2001-CR-4986
226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Dear Mr. Christensen:
I received your letter postmarked 2/28/07. Please find enclosed the
Stipulations, Judgment and Indictment.
There is no time limit proscribed for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in
their consideration of post conviction writ cases.
I deny that I gave you ineffective assistance of counsel at the writ hearing.
I am not authorized to assist you in the presentation of an application for
Federal writ of habeas corpus.
When I receive an order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals I will
immediately let you know.
Sincerely,
~i{J)jlfo~
Vincent D. Callahan
VDC/ar
85
I APP EXIBIT
Vincent D~ Callahan f.- ll 25
Attorney et Law I PG540F60
P.O. Box "12141_
San Antonio, TX 78212-3404 T
0!3!ar MR. Callahar.,
In regards to your letter and my responce. you stated that
you did not possess copi9s oF the court's Fila or the transcript's
bwt if ~ou will read the order signed by Judge carruthers, it
states that a copy C!F th9 order, 118§Siii!! together with ar.y attach-
me~ts we~re to be sent to you F~cm the district ~lerk. I would
sugges•c: t:h~t you get MY poPY From the district clerk and send
~' me a copy oF the c~mplete record including the reqwested
exibits submitted by the state and the transcript oF the hearing.
I have requested a copy From the district clerk ad Frm h
the criminal court administrater, M. Barlow with no response
from either.
I also have one other question, I thought that nny recommondatio
to the court oF Criminal Appeals showld be thrcugh Judge Harle.
Something about Judge Carruthers or a masters holds the hears but
the trial court is responsible, I would like to sse the trial
courts or-d!!~s appointing you my cc:unseland for .Judge Carruthers
to hold the hears. and its accectance oF his recommondations.
I look Forward tn your enswere to these questions.
~...,.,___
Bruce ChrsiteMsen
W.P. CLEMENTS UNIT #1108982
9601 Spur 591
AD!arlillo, Tx 79107
C::::
Ms. Marge churchill Investigator
Texas State Bar
·126 E. Nueve, Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 78204
86
APP EXIBIT
AprU 30, 1!007 I 26
PG 55 OF 60
Vincenti O, Callahan
Auuorney au Law
1",0, 801( 12141
San Anuonio, TM 78212
AIEl Cauee No, 2001-CA·49B6-W1
Deer Mr. Callahan,
Inclosed 1111 the copy cf' the Ccuru•e Orclel" de11ed Jen,
31, 2007. and e le1111el" f'l"om 11he Couru•a ChieF Depuuy Clerk
I sent 111 l"eply tic t!hJ.s later on April 2, 2007 bu11 have h111d
a no word meek 111s to wheu eouiob hee be111n t•ken lF any.
Le11 11te eive you 11he time line For wha11 h111e happened •••••
The court ruled en Jen. 31, end mailed me a copy that dey,
buu the clerk made a mleteke and 1nouldad in the envll!lpe
a oi:ipy ol" 1ihei courti•a order For AP .. 71S;EI01, ElC ParteWaleh.
I reuurned tht order end envlpoe 110 11he clerk thry TOC,
Major MUlar, et the clemente Unit.. On Feb, as, t:he chtrk
sent me the correct oopy ¢If'' the order, on Meroh 9, 07 I
mailed a pe'llitlon For reons1cleret1on fEn l!leno. As you: .can
sa• From 11he let11er da11•d mliu•oh 1!!3, Ttlity oonlld'd·ered 111 late
l On April 2, 07 I mellacl the dep. Cllerk e letter explelnine
the reason For the le'lle f'lling wi11h 11he above dat:ads,
The reason For the request ia 11het neither court oonelderecl
the Fact that 11hle ceee wee a neg, plea one plea even one
senuence, ee eteued ln Ms. Vsledez•e •••••ment, I'm net
aura of' wh11111 your suetue ie au Uhle •lme w111h my case,
bu11 11' yau etill olnslder your eelf' my 111ttorney then your
help would be gre•,ly l!lppriol•tad. Alec enclceed is case
87
lew For the arguement about Neg. Plea and the remand For the entire
Although the fl'lea bargain aaeamed Fair on ita Fec:~a
then it has become unenForceable due to olrcumatencea beyond
control oF the applicant or the etata, namely the Fact that
one oF the caunte in 11.he lndio11man1: (Cipaunt) wee miaoharlterlzed
reeultlng in en llllgal aentanoe 1 outelde 11ha statutory
range oF punishment. Since nei11her the e11ata nor 11he trial
court l'tae the authori11h to anaure oamplianoa with the eentenoa,
11he properly remandy la to allow applicant to withdraw hie
plea anc:l remand the oaee to the urlal ooul"t putting both
partlea beck in.thalr orglaal poaltlone beFore they entered
into the plea bel"galn. Th1e plea bargain wee Hlegal and
wee apparent on the Face oF the record anc:l Judgement even
beFore the lnk dl"yed.
Tl'lla court dose not know For aura but he• eaaumed that
eppUr;~ant would have ~;~ant. to believe l'le wee getting a soocl
deal From the e11ate even lF he would have known th.t he dld
not Face a poeelble sentence oF 99 yeare an one count, who
eto eey that he would not oFbJected to the reoammemendad
111ap 1111" :!!!5 yeara on the r•mlncher of' ohargee, applicant wee
bargaining For one sentence,. the same sentence f'c:~r ell three
chargee ... see Trial L!ewyer•s Af'f'lcUvate fl'ege two, aeoond
paragraph, "DeFendant entered 111ne plea of' no contest to
his lndlotm!lll'ltl end 111.1bmi ttad ~:~na appll~:~atlion f'or deFerred
ec:IJ ud!oet£on undt!'r ~:~ne ceuee number. .DeFendent knew that
he.wee to reolave 111nly one punishment f'or the whole 1ncl1otment,"
Spaoif'io parF111rmance of' the pl·ea bargain which wail
For the pcuseiblllty oF 3!3 years cannot be obtaineu:t, so 11he
parties must: be rat:urned to their position prior to. the
plea oF eutl11y. If' the court simply dslet:ee the oonvlo111on
For count 9 only, the state would t:hen be bound de11rlman11ly
to this aapaot 1111" the agreement! The daoiason of' thie court
in deleting the Flndlng of' sully on oountl s only w111hout
disturbing the ramender oF the bargain ls to edjuetl tlhe
tlen•r 111F "mutsl obU.eet!onz entered by the partliea, thle
would oreaua a new bargain not contemplated by the parties
or 11he trial oourt The terms oF the plea bargain, being
88
con•raotuel in nature, ere leFt laF• to the parties to determine
end atsree Ut:Jon ••• , This OtliUrt h!llls stated marly t!mea that
'i:htll court wlll Mot disturb the terms oF 11uch agreement.
That this is nhr'llhl!lr log!oial or Fair. Sh111nnon 1 70S s. w.
ed at ss:;z, As r•cent as Pilch Hi# SU1 !!! 194 s.w. 3d soa
-
this court has ruled that since 111 wee a nes. l"lea thst
the proper! remendy le to remand the entire CllJIIS to the
trial court plac!ns bouth parties back in their crgianal
position beFore the Negatiated Plea.
Thil!3 ... rguement is in part oF my Memel"andam included with
the applioention, So , Am I Just waet!ng my time here or
you st Ul my at11ornay representing me on my 11.07 application?
eruca Cnr!atenaen
Lyneugh Unit #1108982
1098 $, Hwy 2037
F•. Stockton, T~ 79735
89
APP EXIBIT
II 27
PG 58 OF 60
Vincent D. Callahan
Attomey
Laurel Heights Station
P. 0. Box 12141
San Antonio TX 78212-3007
Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404
May4, 2007
Bruce Christensen # 1108982
Lynaugh Unit
1098 S. Hwy 2037
Fort Stockton TX 79735
RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus
No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals, No. 2001-CR-4986
226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Dear Mr. Christensen:
I received your letter postmarked 511/07. I had not received a copy of the
Per Curiam Opinion dated 1/31/07 which I am returning to you.
When I receive notice of the trial setting, if any, I will immediately let you
know. If the State persists in its re-prosecution of Count 9, I will file a motion
objecting based on the argument that your original plea agreement has been
violation by the State and requesting that the prior judgment on the remaining
counts be set aside.
I will confer with the prosecutor with a view to discover the State's
intensions in this regard. I will stay in touch.
Sincerely,
~$11;1) /;t~.
' . '"'! 1
Vincent D. Callahan
VDC/ar
90
·~·~-----------
CAUSE NO. b/OOICR Lf18fo
OFFENSE: $GXA5SA•~T-CI+ILSJ'
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE ~9,_,:;("--"--(:,""'--'!:,_·--=])_1S_·rr<,-'-1--'-_:_T_ _.COURT
vs. OF
6ruc..e. L, Chr- Coo ..-,+. I X
s .u-. 'r~ 6. 3 0
A MY
yrs . ·-rDc... ,-1 Co"" t-1 T +3l1I:.
1-------------------------------~------~--------------------------------------l
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is requested that the above entitled and numbered cause be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant Cri ina! District Atto
- J
Bexar Cou y, Texas 2 "I o 2 i! 2.f! 'i
ORDER
..... ....~--·
The foregoing motion having been presented to me. on this the
MAi"28~w
day of______~"'=Jil'.:.or____,,A.D; 20 _ _,
and the same having been considered, it, is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED DECREED that said above entitled imd
numbered cause be and the same is hereby dismissed. ~~
)UDG
226\\l.
-~-----------------------------COURT
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
91
OA FOAM 10975 Orhdn~l - WhitP.· St~tP.'o;: C'nnv- Pink· nPfPnthmt'!<:. rnnv- Yt>Jlnw
-
June 13,2007
APP EXIBIT
# 29
Vincent 0. Callahan PG 60 OF 60
AttornaystLsw
Laurel Hights Station
P,O.Box12141
SsnAntonio,TX 78212-3404
DasrMr.Csllshsn,
Yourlsst letter ofMsy 4, 2007 stated thsSt you weregoing
to inquirew~~but the state's intentsians. I have had no response
Whet I went youto do is to file s request for s bench wsrrsnr
end s motion for s speedy trial, end ell so the motion to
object based on the violation ofthe prior plea agreement.
This needs to be done without any further deysl end no metter
the state's intentions •.•• ! also need for you to help me with
filing a second 11.07 based on the ··~~~ti~* same grounds, and any
others that you can think of. I will wait until the 25th of june
to file the 11.07 waiting for your input. Since it spears that you
are still my attorny, the failure to timely acomplish this
things will result in a new complant. I slsoneed information
about getting the court toreconsider its dascion inblanc.
i did file the notioce timily by the clark refuses to file
it. There is no reason for the appeal to have come to a stop
like it has. Please I'm asking for the help that! believe you
should help with anyway and some of the things i shouldn't
have hadd to ssk for ~r about .•••
_.. --
Bruce Christa sen
TDCJ # 11!;18982
Lynaugh Unit
1098 S. Hwy 2037
Ft. Stockton, Tx 79735
92
June 5, 2014
Donna Kay McKinny
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Ms McKinny,
Enclosed is my Second Writ of Mandamus, please file it and
bring it to the attention of the court. I have Ask Judge to
expedite this cause b.ecause I have alteady file my application
for 11.07 and the record that you forward to the court with the
11.07 will incomplete • I have also forwarded a copy to the
other respondants in C/O Criminal District Court Adminstrator.
Would you please assure that they are aware of the writ as I
have written them at the court house and they have not responded.
As you can see I believe that your court record has been comp-
romised by people that the court should be able to trust. We will
see. Thank you for your time on this matter and l'm looking f
forward to hearing from you.
~-9;:2
. Bruce Chr1stensen
Polunsky Unit # 1108982
3872 Fm 350 s.
Livingstone, Tx. 77351
93
TRXAL COURT CAUSEMNO. 2001-CR-4986-W-3
Bruc;e Christensen § In the District Court
Applicant, pro se §
§
vs. § 226th Judicial District
§
§
State of Texas i Bexar County, Texas
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
APl?:t.ICATlON FOR WRIT OP MNDAMUS
to THE HONORABLE JUDGE Sid Harle
Now comes, Bruce Christensen, pro se and complaining of the
following respondents,Donna McKinney, Bexar County District Clerk
Cheryl McMahan, Official Court Reporter of the 226th District court
on Nov. 16th, 2006 and present for a hearing on Cause No. 2001-
CR-4986-Wl, and Roxanne Pena, Official Court Reporter and present
for an evidence hearing held on Dec. 11, 2006. Applicant, states
that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties and ask the court to grant him leave to file this applic-
ation for Writ of Mandamus. The Applicant is entitled to have a
"complete" copy of the record forwarded to the Court Of Criminal
Appeals with his Application of 11.07, to Inculd all of the parts
requested before the clerks record is prepared. According to TX.
R.App.Proc. Rule 34.5, The time for request is any time before the
clerk's record is prepared. Any party may file with the trial
clerk a written designation specifying items to be inculded in the
record. Rule 34.5(b)l. If a relevent item has been omitted from
the clerk's record, the trial court appellate Court or any party
may by letter direct the court clerk to certify and file the appe
ellate court a supplement containg the omited items. Rule 34.5(c)l
94
If the clerks recora is defective or inaccurate the appellant
must inform the trial clerk of the defect or inaccuracy and in-
struct the clerk to make the correction. Rule 34.5(d). :lfso even
if the appellent was not timely Rule 34.5(b)t4), says "Failure to
timely request". An appellant court must not refuse the clerk's
record or a supplement clerk's record because of a failure to be
inculded in the clerk's record. This action is under the facts
of this case, in essence, a mere ministerial act which the res-
pondents have a legal duty to perform. Applicant has properly
requested the respondents to preform which they all have refused.
The record is missing revelant items that have been omited
and applicant has no other legal remendy available to him other t
then this application for mandamus. Applicant Request for the
following relief is as foltows:
Respondant No. 1
Roxanne F. Pena
Official Court Reporter
Criminal Law Magistrate Court
1. On Dec. 11, 2006, evidence hearing before Judge Carruthers,
the State's attorney had you tag Mulit. eaibits, one thru seven.
The reporters recora only shows two exibits #1 and i2. The
recordcord speaks of others Such as Ji5, intered for Identification
purposes. Where are Exibits li3 thru #7 1?? I had ask her to
research her records and to enter into the ~ecord those exibits
and to send me copies. Inclosed is a copy of the letter sent
to to her.
Respondant No. 2
Cheryl McMahan
Official Court Reporter
226th District Court
On Nov. 16, 2006 a conference or hearing was held in the 226th
district court, Ms. McMahan was present and is responsable for
the record. Judge Harle Set a date for the hvidence hearing,
appointed counsel, issued a bench warrent and &&li~&QQlQ&~A
heard evidence inculding applicant's affidavits, aad heard
the district attorney's recommendation that count 9 be reman-
ded ded.for resentencing only.and other unk~o~n Issues! that ~pp­
ellant is unaware of. He was never not1f1ed of th1s hear1ng
95
by the cour·t or by his court appointed counsel. Applicant re-
quest a complete transcript and all exibits ana documents used.
Appl).cant request that Ms. Mcr1ahan also file an affidavit stat-
ing why this transcript and exibits and documents were oot in-
culded in the origianel District's court Records.
Respondance No. ll< 3
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
1. I would request the district Clerk to investagate the offic.al
court record to see if the record has been tampered w.i.th.
a) The record in in disaray according to the
Index, It is possible that the record was
not returned to it origianal order when ex-
bits were removed and altered. Also the
page count does not reconsial with the num-
ber of exibits and items in the index.
b) Applicants rebuttal afidavite are missing
foam the record.
c) Judges orders with exibite is missing 5 pages
d) Court Transcript for hearing on lllot• Nov 11,
2006 is missing.
2. I would request the district Clerk file an affidavit consid-
ering the above items stating what was done and what the results
af her inversagation are. and any other pertenet information
the the court will need to consider with the current record
when it is forwarded to them with my 11.07.
3. Inclosed is co~ies of letters sent to the districk clkrk
U$$$$$U Which she has refused to respond to.
4. t would request the the District Clerk send me copies of the
Docket sheets for both causes, 2001-CR-4986 and ala() 2001-CR-
2632, showing all appearnces and hearings and the final bill-
ing aubmited by appointed counsels.
WHEREFORE, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this app-
lication for Mandamus be granted and that the respondents be order-
ed to proceed as requested, by law to continue wsith the relief
requested. Applicant request the this application for Mandamus
~
be expil:.di~n_this request as he haa filled his application for 11.07
and the court when need this information and recorda to propperly
consider the issues. I would request for any other relief, gen-
eri.land special. as applicant may be intitled to.
r isten.sen
Applicant, pro se
96
gMIIOIR DECARATlON
I, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, pro .ae, in the above
styled and captioned c:auf!E" do swear under penaltiefl of perjury
that the following Application For Writ of Mandamus and the state-
ments contain•d are true and correct to the best of my abilities
and knowledge, on this the 5,day of June, 2014.
Reopect~ittoo,
<(~· . -iJ······
Bruce cbi:it~n
Applicant, pro ae
h
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- I, Bruce Christensen• Applicant, pro se, in the above styled
lnd captioned cause do swear under penalties of perjury that the
following Appliction for Writ of Mandamus wu placed in the u.s.
Mail, post-paid, on the 5th day of June. 2014. To the following
persona: l) Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx. 78205
2) Roxanne F. Pena
OGficial Court Reporter
C/O Criminal District Court Admminstator
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
300 Delorosa, Suite 4076
Sar{ Antonio, Tx. 78205
3) Cheryl McMahan
Official Court-~eporter
226th District Court
C/O Criminal Sistrict court Ad,mtaatr&~O!
Cadena-Reeves Dtatice Center
300 Deloroaa , Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
97 Bruce Christensen
Applicant, pt·o ae
......______ '),..
n .··"'·
:.
I
Donne .McKinney
Bex\~POlU:l4lu;t,
i't~i~atlohdunt lli'tttA\ t..t,c; f.!.•UO\tiUQ• "s-~tU.iilllllt li~li!Gklll t;tlb.t: ld)' ail. ht'lit otl';q;r: l:.h&ll, ~ lift: it
c~ ~~nd&tlUII' fl'• pnye~ fQ;; lili1>.:'1 ilatl ~-.1 i.!..lollll; ~~ &lll;llid fii'Olll
Uud, r.
t'lf.fUafll \':,Q e.Utll'!\'\t tU.:mU.ow ~il<':• 1;1!'&111.4\ldb:td !YICG4Uihl~ie•
99
'l'h111 a~:rtion sought ia \ll'ldl\lt· the hete of this cuuse, :l.n
ese$nce, a m~~e minieteri•l act which the reeponQente have a
legal duty to pl!'Ofot'm • id. 'I'i'Je ahtr.ict tl!r.•k. !!las been ask to c:ortjfy
Supp-Wl with the tHcibtta enured into the teuor:o i\ncl dtiCiavl.tlll
ataUn9 w111nt il!l aU:U 11d..stJir19 and wlult tuu been found.
';l'hf qbov•
styled and eaption'!ld rsqueu do so I!;W~tn.• uni!lv1L· perH••l ties of prejttry
that th~ follcwin9 statem&nt.t• nu&~llll! in the pttilldCln fo:.· Nt n: of
Mandamue are t~ue and ¢orrec': to the beet of m:t abiUtiea ltr!lil
knowled<;~e; On this the. 2m'! day of Oct. 20lJ.
IceJttHy that a true copy of the ilbO'\II!l WillS served on eaeh
patr:ty, by t.t. s. Mail in aecor1Si.n9 w:l. tl'! 'l'ex&u!l l{ul,ee Of CivU Pro.::.
Bruce Chrietans~n
P~titionor, pro ee
)~1Hnaky Unit *1108?82
' · Ill ~50 South
Li•.ri.ngstone; t.x 77351
100
October 23, 2013
Mr. Bruce Christensen
Polunsky Unit #1108982
3874 FM 350 South
Livingstone, TX 77351
Re: Trial Court Number 2001-CR-4986-SPP. W1, Bruce
Christensen vs. The State of Texas
Dear Mr. Christensen:
On October 15 I received correspondence from the Bexar County
District Clerk regarding your request in the above-styled cause.
After conferring with the clerk in the 226th District Court and
reviewing the D page of your case, we determined that I was not
present and did not report any of the hearings in this matter.
In fact, two other reporters are listed on the D page, Cheryl
McMahan and Roxie Pena. I'm sure you've been in touch with
them, and if ~ou have not, their addresses will be available
through the office of Criminal Cour·t Administration in Bexar
County.
I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I first got
notice of your letter on October 15, on my way to the airport
for a long-planned trip, and just got home on October 22.
Sincerely,
~~
Cheryl A. Lyren
CC: Donna McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
Clerk of the 226th District Court
101 !"\
\
Nov. 12, 200.13
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
Attn. Alice s. Gonzales
Supervisor. Criminal Filing
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Texas 78205
RB:2001-CR-4986-Wl- Supp.
Dear Ms~ Gonzales,
Thank you for sendin0 the complete record, but I believe
there is some cofusion about what I need. It pertains to Wl-Supp
only.. Parts of the rwccr·d !1~v~ been removed, ana 011e affi.davit
affid&~it i~ th~ one that has been chunged1 ib thrcG pJ.aC0G~ Ju0t
L:wo of my affidavits have be0n remov·.:d fcoin thE- rt~cor·d .. 'The f~~.J:e+::
th~y ary11ed points of the miGtakes ir1 her afidavi.t~
New what I noed, and I am hot sbre what it ~.s tha~ you can
do, but I need the district clerJ' office to ir~ve~tagate if flarts
of the record are missing and as~ist me in tt·yin~ to find t~se
affidavitam (I do have copies that I flled in th<; Ped. Court In
San Antonio as psrt of rny 2254.) I aJso n~ed some ao1t a statement
saying what happened and what was done, like t~e dist. Attonnoys
office agreed to ~lace ·my copied into the record. Al.ao Judge El~tJe
signed and ~ubbmitted the ord6d aria exibits, If 1·c~ would belp
me find out if there was a hearing on Nov, 16,2006, and if the
Judge still might have copies cr the court ~eport•r who was here
102
There at that time. I do not know who that would be because if
there was a hearin~ there ia no transcript ir• tl1e record. I know
that l'm asking a lot, but the Court of Crim. Appeals was not
able to consider the complete record. Bometthing esle efl of
t!1is happened bet~et·Il Nov~ lG. 2006 a116 Dec. 11th, 2006n Is there
will locking forward to t1ear fron1 you &~air\ ~n~ i youli: likE to
th;:mk you for t:l"~ tim.., consid&r ing this jjr:oblem.
103
May 19, 2014
Roxanne F. Pena
Official Court Reporter
Bexar County Courthouse
100 Dolorose ~~reet
Criminal La!' ~istrate Court
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Ms. Pena,
Tiis is in reference to 2001-cR-4986-Wl, Ex Parta Bruce a. Christensen,
hearing held on 11, Dec. 2006 before Judge Carruthers with you as the reporter.
Ms. Welsh the state's attorney had you tag mult, exibits one though seven •••
the reporters record only shows two offered and at lest one was intreed for
Idenification purposes State's Exibit iS, Page 24, line l4 •••• Exibits 6 & 7
are the reporter's record of the plea and sentencing. Where is Exibit H4???
What is Exibit #4???? I filed a writ of mandamus to recieve a complete copy
of the record which the district clerk complied with. I need you to resurch
your record's and send me copies of Exibits #4, *5, #6, and #7.
I look forward to hearing from you, as soon as possible as I have filed
anseccesive writ for the court to hear evidence of missing parts of therrec-
ord and other issues.
~ttg!J~u" :~
riice:Chri"Stensen
Polunsky Unit ill08982
3872 FM 350 S.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
104
' June s, 2014
Criminal District Court Administartor
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
300 Delorosa, Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
DeQ Cout·t Adminatrator,
Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the
court. I have written them at the court house and they have not
responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward
ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither
is working at the court house anymore, but are they still aesp-
oble tor the records that they took? Please let me know i f you
are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank
you for your time on this matter, il'm am looking forward to hear-
B -ce ristensen
Poll.!.l'Ui!klf Unit 1!1108982
3872 fM 350 $,
Livingstone. tx 77351
105
I May 19, 2014
Vincent D. Callhan
llttorny at law
P.O. Box 12141
san Antonio, Texas 78212-9998
Dear Mr •.. Callbhan,
This is in reference to 2001-CR-4986-Wl Ex Patre Bruce Christensen,
hearing held Dec. 11,2006 where you were n~ court appointed attorny for
that hearing. It this time I would request a copy of your complete file
6ila this case, inculding all inveet:agative notes and corepondence and any .
interviews conducted, including with Ms Valadez and the state•s.attorney.
I also need an affidavit i;ls to the reasons you failed to ar<,jue my facts and
comsu
conclusions of law presented in my brief, and why Me Valadaz was nbO called
regarding ·
by the defence. Please inculed in your affidavit!' your relationship with
Ms. Valadez, and Ms Welsh. Please state if you were aware of my affidavits
pre~ented to the court in rebuttal to m.s Valadez and if so why you did not :In
:--·~"
;!Pnte{rthem into the evidence at the h6--
Christensen
Polunsky Unit, ~1108982
3872 FM 350 South
Livingstone, Tx 77351
106
,iJune -, 9, 2014
Donna Kay McKinny
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Ms. McKinny,
Enclosed is my Petition for an Evidetary Hearing and a Bench
Warrant. Please file it and notify the court. Attached is 30
Exibits totalling 74 pages. I've requested a check to be sent-to
you in the amount of $38.50 for a complete copy of this file. Also
I have sent a copy of just the Petition to Judge Harle of the 226th
District and to the District Attorney's Office To the attn. of
Rico Valdez, appellate Division •. Thank you for your time on
this matter •.
Submitted,
Livingstone, Tx 77351
-•
107
•
'
I
. '
108
NO. 2001CR4986-W3
EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
0 R DE R
Applicant, Bruce Christensen, has filed a pro se
application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
collaterally attacking his conviction in cause number
2001CR4986. (Vernon 2000).
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On or about April 22, 2002, Applicant pled nolo contendere
pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to three ( 3) counts of
aggravated sexual assault. The court assessed punishment at
thirty (30) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
Institutional Division. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 2,
2002. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the
trial court in No. 04-02-00397-CR. Applicant filed this
application for writ of habeas corpus on May 7, 2014. A copy of
this application was received by the District Attorney on May
27, 2014.
109
ALLEGATrONS OF APPLrCANT
1. In Applicant's first ground for relief, Applicant alleges
"Ineffective assistance of counsel Court appointed Habeas
Counsel." Specifically, Applicant contends that the court
stated that he had alleged sufficient facts regarding counsel's
performance, if true might be entitled to relief. He had
demonstrated that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
at trial was a "substantial one." The trial court appointed
counsel and held a hearing. Appointed habeas counsel then
impeded and obstructed in presenting Applicant's claim by:
refusing to call any witnesses to testify, including trail
counsel, court-appointed investigator, as well as other
witnesses; refusing to present any of Applicant's alleged
charges and facts of ineffectiveness presented in his pro se
brief; refusing to present any of Applicant's statements of
facts and law; refusing to correct the false impression of trial
counsel's credibility when Applicant brought to his attention
that Ms. Valadez needed to testify and not by affidavit; and
refusing to use Applicant's plausible and sound strategy that
possessed sufficient substance to be viable argument. Habeas
counsel refused to follow the above i terns because counsel was
inherently in conflict with his client's interest, not his lack
of competence, but his misplaced desire, as he stated to
110
Applicant "not to open a can of worms. " Habeas counsel placed
himself in a situation that he was required to make choices
between advancing his client's interest in a fair hearing or
advance other interest to the detriment of his client. Counsel
made that choice to advance those other interests, the
protection of Ms. Valadez' reputation and her livelihood. What
was in counsel's best interest was to call Ms. Valadez and the
other witnesses to the stand and aggressively cross-examine her
actions such as trial preparation, legal advice given and trial
strategy (or lack thereof). But because of his relationship
with trial counsel, he would have been "greatly chilled in that
cross" or as here, unable to cross examine. In Applicant's
second writ, the court found that habeas counsel was effective
and the CCA denied relief w/o written order. The Court, in
fact, had no reason to review because under then current Texas
and Fifth Circuit precedent, patently unfair though it might be,
the reality facing a convicted Texas criminal defendant is that
neither a negligent failure or even malicious refusal to present
a potentially meritorious claim or even gross incompetence is
the course of the defendant's state habeas proceeding,
effectively precludes habeas review of that claim. At the time
of Applicant's evidence hearing, a state habeas petitioner
possessed no right to effective habeas counsel on any issues
presented. Applicant made every effort to present to the court
111
his complaint about the performance of his habeas counsel before
the hearing. Habeas counsel was aware of his actions and his
desired outcome; he knew he would suffer no legal consequences
for his failure to properly plead and prove Applicant's
ineffective of counsel claim. The proposed finding of facts and
law submitted by Habeas counsel was so poorly done that a first
time jailhouse lawyer could have done a better job. Allowing
the. courts to consider the incomplete record, that is, his
client's affidavits, to be removed from the record and other
parts altered show his planned intentions. The new rule allows
an exception to show cause on an ineffective assistance of
counsel and Texas should look at it first.
2. In Applicant's second ground for relief, Applicant alleges
"Trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed an
incomplete record; the official court record had been altered
and parts removed and destroyed." Specifically, Applicant
alleges that:
a) Trial counsel's affidavit altered and replaced in the
record
b) Applicant's affidavit removed from the official court
record.
c) Applicant's Supp. Affidavit missing from the official court
record;
112
d) Trial judge entered into the record "Exhibits" missing from
the court record.
Applicant contends the above documents were/are missing,
removed, and or destroyed from the official court record and not
considered by the court in its decision making of the merits of
the case. Applicant has tried to find and replace missing parts
of the record contacting the District Clerk and court reporters.
Applicant found Items number 3 and 4 in the record of his :2254
filed in the u.s. District Court in San Antonio, Tx. The court
should hold a hearing so that items 3 and 4 can be entered into
the record and items 1 and 4 can be properly investigated and
the findings entered into the record.
3. In Applicant's third ground for relief, Applicant alleges
"State's violation of the plea agreement/State's improper
modification of defendant's judgment of sentence."
Specifically, Applicant alleges that the provisions of
Applicant's plea agreement became unenforceable due to one
provision being illegal and void sentence. The Court of
Criminal Appeals sending the defendant back to answer the
indictment on count nine only was improper. The court has
stated many times "when only one of the sentencing elements is
void, the judgment is rendered void only if the judgment cannot
be reformed to cure the infirmity, i.e., the infirmity cannot be
113
cured without resorting to resentencing. The defendant should
have been allowed to withdraw his "one Plea" and to return both
parties back to their original positions before the plea. By
remanding only count nine, the court placed the defendant in a
position that he might face adverse collateral consequences from
potential new sentencing, and by becoming a separate
hearing/trial, the defendant losses all bargaining issues he had
when plea bargaining with the full indictment. Now the state
has no reason to offer less than the max 20 years and the court,
now as a new separate proceeding, has the ability to stack this
new sentence on the prior sentence, something that the trial
court did not have the ability to do in the first hearing. The
trial court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider
this ground as Applicant should have presented it in his first
writ. Habeas counsel did in fact touch this issue in short form
in his proposed finding of facts, inartfully and incomplete that
it was, second how would the defendant know what actions the
Court of Criminal Appeals would take before their decision was
made. The court did not consider this issue on the merits and
should do so now.
4. In Applicant's fourth ground for relief, Applicant alleges
"Trial court's failure to allow defendant to fully participate
in Applicant's first 11.07 habeas evidence hearing."
114
Specifically, Applicant alleges that the court refused to allow
defendant to have his restraints adjusted to allow him to have
full access to his legal notes and to be able to freely confer
and assist his habeas counsel. As defendant was asking the
court for this assistance, court appointed habeas sat by doing
nothing, refusing to assist him with this action as it became
apparent that he did not want him to be able to access his notes
and take part in his own defense. The method that defendant was
restrained caused him to be inhibited and discouraged from
taking part in presenting his case not only by the court by his
own counsel.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about April 22, 2002, Applicant pled nolo contendere
pursuant to a. plea bargain agreement to three ( 3) counts of
aggravated sexual assault. The court assessed punishment at
thirty (30) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
Institutional Division. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 2,
2002. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the
trial court in No. 04-02-00397-CR.
2. Applicant filed a previous writ of habeas corpus on November
28, 2005 alleging that he pled no contest to Count IX of the
indictment, which actually alleged sexual assault in which case
he should have been sentenced to two (2) to twenty (20) years
115
for sexual assault but was instead sentenced to thirty years for
aggravated sexual assault. Additionally, Applicant alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. Pursuant to the Court of Criminal Appeal's order, a hearing
was held in the trial court. By mandate issued January 31,
2007, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief in part and
ordered that the judgment, as it related to Count IX of the
indictment, be set aside and that Applicant be remanded to
answer the charges against him (AP-75,602}.
4. On May 23, 2007, the Court granted the State's Motion to
Dismiss Count IX of the indictment.
5. Grounds One, Three and Four of this instant writ were
previously raised by Applicant in his second writ.
6. With regard to Ground Two in this instant writ, Applicant
does not state or show that said current claim was unavailable
at the time he filed his previous writ application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This third writ application is a subsequent application and
cannot be considered as it challenges the same conviction as his
prior writ. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code §11.07(4} (Vernon 2012}.
116
2. This Court finds that Applicant is precluded from bringing
this third writ application based upon the subsequent writ
provision in Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07 § 4(a)-(c) (Vernon
2 012) . The current claims and issues either were or could have
been presented previously in his prior writ application.
3. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be
. DISMISSED.
117
ORDERS
The District Clerk of Bexar County, Texas, is ordered to
prepare a copy of this document, together with any attachments
and forward the same to the following persons by mail or the
most practical means:
a. The Court of Criminal Appeals
Austin, Texas 78711
b. Susan D. Reed
Criminal District Attorney
Paul Elizondo Tower
Bexar County, Texas 78205
c. BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN
TDCJ #1108982
Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 S
Livingston TX 77351
SIGNED, ORDERED and DECREED ON JUN 1 3 2014 _.,..-/
JUDGE SID HARLE
226TH Judicial District Court
Bexar County, Texas
118
TRIAL COURT CAUSEMNO. 2001-CR-4986-W-3
Bruce Christensen § In the District Court
Applicant, pro se §
§
vs. § 226th Judicial District
§
§
State of Texas i Bexar county, Texas
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
APPLICATION FOR WRIT 011' MNDAMUS
to THE HONORABLE JUDGE Sid Harle
Now comes, Bruce Christensen, pro se and complaining of the
following reepondents,oonna McKinney, Bexar eounty District Clerk
Cheryl McMahan, Official Court Reporter of the 226th District court
on Nov. 16th, 2006 and present for a hearing on Cause No. 2001-
CR-4986-!All, and Roxanne Pena, Official Court Reportet· and present
for an evidence hearing held on Dec. 11, 2006. Applicant, states
that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties and ask the court to grant him leave to file this applic-
ation for ~1rit of Mandamus. The Applicant is entitled to have a
"complete" copy of the record forwarded to the Court Of Criminal
Appeals with his Application of 11.07, to Inculd all of the pa:r:·ts
requested before the clerks record is prepared. According to TX.
R.App.Proc. Rule 34.5, The time for request is any time before the
clerk's record is prepared. Any party may file with the trial
clerk a written designation specifying items to be inculded in the
record. Rule 34.5{b)l. If a relevant item has been omitted from
the clerk's record, the trial court appellate Cout·t or any party
may by letter direct the court clerk to certify and file the appe
ellate court a supplement containg the omited items. Rule 34.5(c)l
119
If the clerks record is defective or inaccurate the appellant
must inform the trial clerk of the defect or inaccuracy and in-
struct the clerk to make the correction. Rule 34.5(d}. lfso even
if the appellant was not timely Rule 34.5(b)$4), says "Failure to
timely request•. An appellant court must not refuse the clerk's
record or a supplement clerk's record because of a failure to be
inculded in the clerk's t·ecord. This action is under the facts
of this case, in essence, a mere ministerial act which the res-
pondents have a legal duty to perform. Applicant has pt·opet·ly
requested the respondents to preform which they all have refused.
The record is missing revelant items that have been omited
and applicant has no other legal remendy available to him other t
then this application for mandamus. Applicant Request for the
following relief is as fol.ows:
Respondant No. 1
Roxanne E'. Pena
Official Court Reporter
Criminal Law Magistrate Court
1. On Dec. 11, :1006, evidence hearing before Judge Carruthers,
the State's attorney had you tag Mulit• eaibits, one thru seven.
The reporters record only shows two exibits #l and 12. The
~rdcord speaks of others Such as #5, intered for Identification
purposes. Where are Exibits 13 thru #7 1?? I had ask her to
research her records and to enter into the record those exibits
and to send me copies. Inclosed Ls a copy of the letter sent
1li' to her.
Respondent No. 2
Cheryl McMahan
Official Court Reporter
226th District Court
1. On Nov. 16, 2006 a conference or hearing was held in the 226th
distt·ict court, Ms. McMahan was present and is responeable for
the record. Judge Harle Set a date for the kvidence hearing,
appointed counsel. issued a bench warrant and 6&&6&&&AlA6~A
heard evidence inculding applicant's affidavits, aad heard
the district attorney's recommendation that count 9 be reman-
ded.for resentencing onlr.and other unknown Issues, that app-
ellant is unaware of. He was never notified of this hearing
120
by the·court or by his court appointed counsel. Applicant re-
quest a complete transcript and all exibits ana documents used.
Appl,icant request that Ms. McMahan also file an affidavit stat-
ing why this transcript and exibita and documents were oot in-
culded in the origianel District's court Recorda.
Reapondance No. # 3
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar Collnty.District Clerk
1. I would request the district Clerk to investagate the official
court record to see if the record has been tampered with.
a) The record in in aiaaray according to the
Index, It is possible that the recora was
not returned to it origianal order when ex-
bi.ts were removed and altered. Also the
.page count aoes not reconsial with the num-
ber of exibits and items in the index.
b) Applicants rebuttal afiaavits are missing
foDm the record. · ·
c) Judges orders with exibits is missing 5 pages
d) Court Transcript for hearing on $60• Nov 11,
2006 is missing.
2. I would request the district Clerk file an affidavit consid-
ering the above items stating what was done and what the results
af her inversagation are. and any other pertenet information
the the court will need to consider with the current recora
when it is forwaredd to them with my 11.07.
3. Inclosed is co;ies of letters sent to the districk clkrk
U~$$$$1:\$Which she has refused to respona to.
4. I would request the the District Clerk send me copies of the
Docket sheets for both causes, 2001-CR-4986 and also 2001-CR-
2632, showing all appearnces and hearings and the final bill-
ing submited by appointed counsels.
WHEREFORE, ALt. THINGS CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this app-
lication for Mandamus be granted and that the responaents be order-
ea to proceed as requested, by law to continue wsith the relief
requested. Applicant request the this application for Mandamus
be ~his request as he has filled his application for ll..07
and the court when need this information and records to propperly
consider the issues. I would request for any other relief, gen-
erillana special. as applicant may be intitled to.
rue istensen
121
Applicant, pro se
YIIIORR DECARATION
I, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, pro se, in the above
styled ana captioned cause, do swear under penalties of perjury
that the following Application For Writ of Mandamus and the state-
ments contain'd are true and correct to the best of my abilities
and knowledge, on this the S,day of June, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,
~Applicant, pro se
h
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bruce Christensen~ Applicant, pro se, in the above styled
lnd captioned cause do swear under penalties of perjury that the
following Appliction for Writ of Mandamus was placed in the u.s.
Mail, post-paid, on the 5th day of June, 2014. To the following
persons: 1) Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx. 78205
2) Roxanne F. Pena
Odficial Court Reporter
C/O Criminal District Court Admminstator
Cadena-Reaves Justice Center
300 Delorosa, Suite 4076
san Antonio, Tx. 78205
3) Cheryl McMahan
Official Court-1:eporter
226th District Court
C/O Cdminal District court AddnbiiastrAf6R
Cadena-Reaves Distice center
300 Delorosa , Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
~t-t_e_d_,_...;,;-""'>
122 Bruce Christensen
Applicant, pro se
Criminal District court Administartor
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
300 Delorosa, Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Deaa Court Adminstrator,
Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the
court• I have written them at the court house and they have not
responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward
ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither
is working at the court house anymore, but are they still Desp-
oble for the records that they took? Please let me know if you
are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank
you for your time on this matter, ii'm am looking forward to hear-
ing
B ce ristensen
Polunsky Unit #1108982
3872 fM 350 S,
Livingstone, tx 77351
123
June ?, 20,14
Criminal District Court Administartor
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
300 Delorosa, Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Court Adminstrator,
Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the
court. I have written them at the court house and they have not
responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward
ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither
is working at the court house anymore, but are they still resp-
oble for the records that they took? Please let me know if you
are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank
you for your time on this matter, I'm am looking forward to hear-
ing fr~ you.
kL IIL..J.---::::,..s;:-----·
B~T!2:en
Po1unsky Unit #1108982
3872 FM 350 S.
Livingstone, tx 77351
124
_,
Bruce Christensen
Polonsky ill08~S2
~J:ti t:i';::;HS'tii.l!ll :r:¥. .?:.?3<:~;::;.'S'j
3872 FM 350 S. .··_!J-j:;~ ·:XJt:i~ ·?.fJi4 ~--~?f# i. t
Livingstone, Tx 77351
Criminal District Court Aerninstrator
Cadena-Reeves 3ustice Center
300 Delorosa St. Suite 4076
San Antonio, Tx 78205
,.
-~ ~
'7El:Z0530:ZSI$19 ''''I• •lu• 1.11Jll,tiJJllf1JIIl11 j.j1 lJ~JU,,,/
N •IIi 11111 li1 J 1
-~"'"""''"""'.,.,;;a:.;..,;;~,_"'"=-""""""''"'""""""""'""""""""'""'""""--·-··----~---·..,....,___.....,._...~ =-~~-,.,....~"""'""""""""-~=---=::~:"'"~;'-
125
CAUSE NO. 2001-CR-4986-\'13
EX PARTE § IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § 226th DISTRICT COURT
§ 1-
APPLICANT, PRO SE § 0:
(_)
§
§
§ § § § § § § § § § §
comes now, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, in the above
styled and captioned memorandum in support for a writ of habeas
corpus, c.c.P. §11.07, by a person in state custody and makes this
application herein his memorandum in support of his writ and will
show the court the following:
JURISDICTION
Applicant states this court has jurisdiction over the suoject
matter and the parties inculding this seccessive or second writ,
pursuant to Vernon's ann.Code of Criminal Proc. § 11.07, Ex parte
Maldando, 588 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex.Crim.Appl985). :11.07 §4(ai (1)
(b)(c)• This cause of action arises because petitioner is wrong-
fully restricted in his liberty by the Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, and the State of Texas. Tx.c.c.P. art. 11.07
§4(a) Ifa subsequent applicantion for writ of habeas corpus is
filled after final disposition of an intial application challenging
the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or
grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the applic-
ation contains sufficient specif facts establishing that: (1) The
current claim and issues have not been and could not have been
presented previous in an oroginal application or in a. previously
considered application filed under this article because the fact-
126
ual or legal basis for the claim was unavable on the date the
applicant filed the previous application. :4(b) For the pur-
poses of Subsection (a)(l), a legal basis of a claim is unavail-
able on or before a date described by (a)(l) if the legal basis
was not recoqunized by and could not have been reasonable formul~
ated from a final decision of the United States, or a court of
appealate jurisdiction of this state on or before tha-t:-aat-e~-§"1 ___ _
(c) For purposes of Subsection, (a)(l) a factual basis of a claim
is unavailable on or before a date described by subsection (a)(l)
if the factual basis was not ascertainable through the exercise
of reasonable diliqence on or before that date. The rule of law
at the time of applicants prior application the legal basis for
the claim eas not available to him. the rule of law concerning
effictive representation durii1g habeas proceedings did not req-
urie effective comptent representation. "Dificient perform-
ance or even gross imcompitence by petitioner's state habeas
counsel does not satisfy either prong of Stricklandtest for ineff-
ective assistance, because habeas petitioner possesses no constit-
utional right to the assistance of counsel during his state habeas
proceedings.• or "Either negligent failure or a malicious refusal
by convicted defendant's state habeas counsel to present potintialy
meritious claim in the course of the defendant's state habeas pro-
ceeding, effectively preculeded review of the claim.• " Tough luck
for defendants whose lawyers make mistakes, have conflicts with hs
client, or abandon his client or even sabatage the case. In this
case applicant had a actual conflict with his counsel and counsel
ambushed applicant's evidence hearing. Applicant had a substantial
underlying claim of ineffective assistance of Trial counsel and
127
was harmed by his actions and non-actions. If prisoner has ex-
husted his state remedy unsuccessfully, but there is intervening
supreme Court decision, that might induce the state to give rel-
ief, prisoner will be required to apply again for relief from
state courts, so that they may have first opportunity to apply
new Supreme Court Decision. A new rule of constitutional law
should be applied retroactively, as would authorize a second or
secces,;i ve writ, if it requires the observance of chose pr_oJ::_e_d_ur_es__
that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In other
words; further exhaustion may be required where "an intervening
change in federal law cast the legal issue in a fundamentally
different light. Counsel appointed for state collateral review
refused to present applicant's evidence of fact and law considering
trial counsel's ineffective ness, refused to call any witness,
three, that were given to counsel and considered to be indispens-
able, even needing compulsory service, Trial counsel's testimoney
under oath was vital if not mandantory of applicant to prove her
trial preperation, stratagy, and legal advise given. Habeas
counsel refused to follow applicant's stratgy, which was viable
and had been secessfull in his gaining a hearing to prove his
allegations. For present purposes, a distinction between (1) a
state that denies permission to raise the claim-on direct appeal
or (2) a state that grants permission, but denies a fair, meaning-
ful opportunity to develop the record is a distinction without
difference. Applicant would have been better off to have no att-
orney at all, as he would have called witnesses and presented much
more evidence for the record, inartfully maybe, but still better
than a court appointed attorney that impeded, obstructed, and
£rustrated applicant's attempt to comply with the state's estab-
~f~.
128
Further habeas counsel allowed the court to labor with an incomp-
record, evidence was not presented (Facts or Law), exibits that
weree redacted, exibits that were removed from the record, hearings
held and evidence given without applicant's knowelge and prior
notice, or thedisicions made were withheld from applicant and the
Court of Criminal Appeals for review. The denial of effective
appointed counsel during habeas evidence hearinq, and his actual
conflict of interest did in fact prejudice applicant and th~s may
justify an exception to the constitutional rule that there is no
right to counsel in a collateral proceedinq. see Martinez v. ryan,
132 s.ct. 1309, (012), Coleman v. Thompson, 111 s.ct. 2546, Douglas
v. California, 83 s.ct. 814.
PARTIES TO THE CASE
(l) Bruce Christenssen
Applicant, pro se
Polunsky Unit #1108982
3872 FM 350 S.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
(2) Brad Livingston, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
1107 Ave. J
Huntsville Tx. 77342-0099
(3) The State of Texas
Susan Reed
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County
300 Delorosa. Suite 5072
San Antonio, Tx 78205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
on April 22, 2002, applicant pled nolo contendere to three
counts of aggravated sexaul assault. the court assessed punish-
ment at thirty years in TDCJ-ID for each count to run concurrently.
----
Applicant filed a' n::>tice of-appea-r-mr-June 19-;--zcro-2-;---Th_e--fourth
129 PAGE I
of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the trial court in No. 04-
02-00397-CR. Applicant filed his first appolicantion for writ
of habeas corpus on Nov. 28, 2005. By order dated Aug. 30, 2006,
the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the trial court to make
finding of fact and conclusions of law in regard to applicant's
claim that his plea was involuntary. On Sept 8, 2006, the trial
court ordered that trial counsel file her wriiten affidavit
regarding the allagations of ineffective assistance of counsel and
for the applicant to file his. On Sept 25, 2006 trial counsel
filed an affidavit , and applicant followed up by filing his aff-
idavit and supp. affidavit on or about 11, and 16 of Oct. 2006,
by placing them in the prison mail system. These affidavits are
not in the record. On Nov 11, 2006 The trial court held a hearing
and heard evidence, ordered an evidence hearing, appointed habeas
counsel, and issued a bench warrant for applicant. This hearing
is not in the recordand applicant was unaware of the hearing or
any evidence presented. At the hearing the trial court entered
into evidence "exibits", some appear to be missing from the record
also missing is the court reporters record of this hearing, with
all evidence presented, documents and affidavits. On June 3, 2014
applicant recieved a copy of habeqs counsel•s case file, inculded
in the file is a handwritten note concerning discovery in this
hearing, in which Ms. Valadez denied being ineffective, and Anna,
who I would guess works for the district attorney's office. made
a statement thatshe would recomend remand only count 9, for re-
sentenceing. Those in attendance for this hearing (conference)
were (a) Cheryl McMahan, (b) Hilda, (c) Sid, (d) Anna, (e) Terry,
(f) and the note taker, would be Mr. Denis Callahan. The above
documents were/are missing, removed and or destroyed from the
130 PAGE ~
from the official court record and not considered by the Law Mag-
istrateduring the evidence hearing or the court of Criminal appeals
in consideration of the merits of the case. Applicant has tried
to locate and supplement the record, by contacting the district
clerk, Three different court reporters, the district attorney's
office, requested the case file from habeas counsel and an affidavit
concerning the case, he responded with an incomplete file, and re-
fused to provide an affidavit without a court order. The evidence
that was withheld, removed, destroyed, or missing from the record
was done so by "parties" in this case to cover up ~s. Valadez's
ineffective assistance of counsel and to do harm to the applicant
by causeing his writ to fail and be denied. The ability to test
the accuracy of evidence at the evidence is so important that the
absence of proper confrontation at the evidence hearing calls into
the ultimate integerity of the fact findinq process. The State's
evidence rested on the credibility of Ms. Valadez's affidavit, and
the failure of habeas counselto cross-examine her under oath, and
the Hearing Judge to ensure proper confrontation and not to place
give a finding of credibility to a witness qiving testominy by
affidavit only without being aware of the variations in demeanor
and tone of voice that bear heavaly on the listener's understand-
ing of and belief in what is said, to insulate his findings from
review by denominationg the credibility determinations, for factors
other than demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether
or not to believe a witness. When a witness leaves a false impres-
sion concerning a matter relating to her cr'edibility, the opposing
party is allowed to correct that false impression, through cross-
PAGE 6
131
examination, a defandant tests the believably of a witness and
the truth of his testominy. Primary obiect of the 6th ammendment
was to prevent the use of ex parte statements against an accused
who has no opportunity to confront and cross-exam the witness, to
test the recollection and sift the conscience of those under oath.
The courts have pointed out that under Washington v. Texas, 388
u.s. 14, 19 87 s.ct. 1920, 1923 (1967), the defendant must be aff-
orded the right to offer testimony of witnesses and to comple
attendance,consquently habeas counsel committed an error of canst-
itutional magnitude by refusing applicant's request to present
appearnce of trial counsel, court appointed investaqator, and
other witnesses. To place before the court the she, (Ms. Valadez)
was not a credible person, One who's trustworthy and entitled
to be believed~ In law and legal proceedings, one who is entitled
to have his oath or affidavit accepted as relible, not only on
account of his good reputation for veracity, but also on account
of his i~telliqence, knowledge of the cucumstances and "Dis-
interested relation to the matter in question". Ms Valadez
had sufficient interest in the matter to not present an accurate
and truthful! account of her representation of her client. As does
Mr. Callahan, sui generis in that counsel's "intentionally refusing
to plead specific facts that might support a proper habeas corpus
application. Not his lack of competence, but his misplaced desire
to protect Ms Valadez and her reputation and her livilY--hEX>d, at
the peril of his client. Where there is evidence of counsel's
"struggle to serve two masters" that cannot be seriously doubted
it follows that an accused's defense is impaired".(citinq Cuyler,
446 u.s. at 349, 100 s.ct. 1708), defendant is denied effective
132
PAGE 7
counsel wheie attorney is unable to cross examination of witness
bec.ause .att\Drney' s relationship with the \-{ltf\e'i;'j· anc'l. his desire
to ad'l(ance interest o:f.,yi,tness OV!'!.r cur):"e!')t; clie1},1;• Ap!)licaQt
argues that he was adversely, affected py ,C:Otln.se).s failure to ta~e
certain actions, In United Stat~s v. qamb.j-)1~,, the t.h.i.rd circuit
a,dopted a helpful test previously .es.tablis}1e(l. in the first circui~
am,d hel.d that in order to prlac;:ed them into his Po,rt~qlio, not letting
apJ?licant' see them.,' applicant requested this,, documents to be
inculded in the case. file, tl:lere we,re pqt,,al.so Mr. Callahan did
not deny there existence. Applicant has, f~le,,two writ of mandumas
to get copied from Ms Pena 1 officiaJ c 0 urt .. r,eporter, that tag the
exibLts, but, are... not .i!'lcul(led .in the re,c:d,ord. a].so included in the
above writ is the ,offiG:ial court repQJ[,t,~? of. t}1e .. 226th at the time
of the. hearing on Nov. 11, 2006, ';·
Cheryl McMahan to recieve a copy
... ,·- :· .. ,·; ,_-_;n·- ;-,: '
of the transcript oan. all exibits. Once again -,::
the applicant was
.never informed of thi.s hearing by notic:e or by his appointed
counsel. next ,in the ~vidence h,earing ap~J..ican,t, ask the court to
remove his wrist restraimts so that ·h~ would· be able to have
access to his notes and to take part in the hearing sufficiently.
133
PAGE 8
Mr. Callahan did nothing to assist his client knowing that he had
if fact written him requesting the he assist him in this matter.
his silence, whichifie would have assisted in probably the littlest
amount the iudqe would probably defered to Mr. callhan insteed of
to the bailiff who said no to the request. applicant was suprised
and did not know how to proceed, and aqain Mr. Callahan refused to
assist him. his actions were apparent he did not want his client
to be able to access his notes and be able to take part is pres-
entinq evidence. The method that the applicant was restrianed, at
the ankles and wrist (the wrist allowed no movement of the hands l'--~
caused him to be inhibited and discuraged from takinq part. The
not
appellant had given the court any reason to have doubts about the
security of the courtroom. Also the bailiff had many options and
means to security the courtroom, and would have been less interfer-
ing with appellant's ability to take part in the hearinq.the trial
court abused its disceretion and applicant's due process because
the court improperly defered to the bailiff request that remain
shackled during hearing. instead of makinq an independant deter-
mination. Lakin v. Stine, 431 F3d 959, 963. when a defendant
complains on appeal of the use of shackles and the appleeate court
first determines if the court abused its discrection by allowinq
the defendant to be shackled.(in this case excessive physical
restraints, the trial court did not use its discrection as it did
not make findings that they were justified by an essential state
intersest, as the need for physical security, escape preventation,
or courtroom decorum) if so the appellate court then determines
whether defendant suffered harm as a result. Lonq v. State, 823
S.W.2d 259, 282, (Tex. Crim.App.l991). The reasonable of habeas
counsel's actions or lack of action may be determined or subst~
134 PJI,GE (9
B
antially infulenced by applicant's own statements or actions.
Habeas counsel's actions are usually based "quite properly" on
informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on informat-
ion supplied by the defendant. What investaqations decisions are
reasonable depends critically on such information ••. In short inq-
uriry into counsel's conversations with applicant may be critical
to a proper assessment of counsel's actions and desisions,iust as
it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other
decisions. Habeas refused to present any of applicant's alleged
charges and facts prestened in his pro se er-ief- or -any- i terns of
fact and law decussed in the few and short conversions, and in
letters sent to counsel before and after evidence hearing. Appell-
ant has alleged numerious specific facts showing habeas counsel's
investagation and litigation decisions were in fact inadequate,
his pleadings and ~roof presented at the hearing where non-exist-
ent, except applicant's testimony or proof that I attempted to
present at the hearing, but was cut off or rushed to another sub-
ject, his proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law were
de minis, he presented no facts: and proof. and his cites to law
were the least possible amount and still say that he cited cases.
he objected to nothing the state presented inculding places that:
were ilrevelant, which the applicant had to object on his ownl,
and contuniued to make statements to be placed in the record, with
out beinq qualified in any way, ask three or four questions and
then demand an answer makeinq it sound as if applicant was oive-
inq an answer to all the questions. Ms. Welsh made statement of
law and fact that were not true, neither mr. Callahan or the court
corrected these errors. Which I will go through one at a time.
then I will qive the facts and law that I had at the time of hear-
FOil
inq. Which Mr. Callahan refused to present to the court ·~consideration.
135
page 10
FACTS AND LAW SUBMITTED BY TRIAL COUNSEL AND STATES ATTORNEY
1) Trial counsel stated that all offenses were 3q, and defendant
must serve 1/2 of his stenence to be eliqible for parole. Ms.
Welsh concurred and so stated in the record of the evidence
hearinq CR. paqe 28 line 23. This is incorrect. If Ms.
Valadez had correctly researched the law, she would have
found that sexaul assault did not become 3q until 1995 and
sexaul assault w/child did not become 3q until~l997. That
indency w/child did not become a non mandantory supervision
(parole) unti~ 1997 a non 3g offense was eliqible for parole
when actual time plus qood time equaled 1/4 of sentence be-
came parole eligible, and mandantory supervision was released
when actual time plus qood time equaled complete sentence.
Ms. Valadez had plenty of options avabile to her in the pro
cess of plea bargairrinq
2). Ms. Valadez states that applicant was advised that the court
could stack the sentences and that he took the plea to avoid
stackinq. Ms. Welsh concurred. That is incorrect. Ms. Welsh
rants and raves that the offenses are stackable and would
have been if the state has ask for it to be. Ms Valdez also
stated that she advised me that if taken to trial that the
iury cound statck the offenses. CR. paoe 29 line 3 and CR
page 30 line 24,thru paqe 31 line 15 , page 34 line 20.
If Ms Valadez and Ms. Welsh had of investaqated the rule
of law ineffect at the time they would have found that when
the ioinder of prosecution, texas law section 3.03 of the
penal code provides that an accused is found guilty of
offenses arisinq out of a sinqle criminal episode and if
any of the offenses were committed before Sept. 1. 1995
136
PAGE IJ
of this act is covered by the law in effect before the cha~
nges made by this act and the former law is continued in
effect for this purpose. See acts 1995 74th Leq. ch 595 §2
and as such the law ineffect before the above chanqes which
pertain to this criminal episode with a offense date of 8/30
1994. See acts 1993 73rd Leq. ch 900 §1.01 the law ineffect
at the time P.c. 3.03 did not contain the sub parqraph (b)Xl)
or (B)(2). and stated that the sentences shall run current.
and I am not sure but my reading of the Leg note (2)(b) also
ment to cause of the offenses charqed in one trial and one
criminal episode that the "LAW" all law ineffect at the time
the criminal episode beqan is the law that the defendant is
under not the multipule chanqes in law over the span of the
criminal eoisode, defendant is to be tried under one law.
some courts have stated that if there is some proof that the
offenses occured in 1997 then the offenses can be stacked.
I believe that to be in error. see Owens v. State. 96 S.W.
3d 668,(Tx•App.Austin), dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797, miller
v. state 33 S.W.3d 257, Patterson v. state 96 S.W.3d 427. All
of these had criminal episode beqan date before 1997 and one
had a date of may 1, 1995. The cumulation of sentences
constitutes an increase in ounshment for the ourooses of ex
oost facto analyis. see Johnson v. state 930 S.W.2d 589.
(Tex.Crim-Aop. 1996). Scott v. State 19 S.W.3d 864 (200).
also to show that Ms. Valadez is not current in the law
see Baker v. State 107 S.W.3d 671. Ms- Valadez was Mr. Baker's
trial counsel, she allowed Mr. Baker's sentences to be stack
ed even though it was in fact one criminal eoisode. and the
exceptions in PC 3.03 did not pertian to that case. Ms.
137 PAGE 12
Valadez was and is not up to date _on the law as it pretained
applicant. Mr. Callahan and the trial court should have al-
lowed defendant to state his evidence. or correct Ms. Welsh
on the courts own initiative or atleast researched it.
3) Trial counsel stated that the defendant faced ten counts of
a a a. sexaul a.ssaul t, in her affidavit she states that !:Stre--
advised my client_tha~ the_indictment.alleaed-four-aao- ~ex­
ual assaults. three sexaul assualts of a. child under 17· and
six indecencies" and faced thireen convictions Ms Welsh
concurred statinq as she read from the indictment CR oaqe
30 line 10. Count 2 is an indecency. Count 3, oar. A, agg.
sexaul assault: par B. Aaaravated Sexaul assault: Count 4,
Indeceny: count S, Par A, Sexayl assault: oar. B. sexaul
assault: oar c, indecency; Count 4, (Count 6), Indecency;
Count 7, Aggravated sexaul assault: Count 8, Indecencv:
Count 9, Sexaul assault: and count 10, is indecency. Now.
the fact of the matter is, if you had qone to trial. thev
could have stacked and YOU wanted to avoid stackinq. You
told Your attornev that. And you said that on the record
durina sentencina You know what vou were facina· didn't vou?
This is incorrect and theY have misstated the facts and the
law- Pirst it was count 9. that was misstated and caused
dthe court the labor under Ms. Valades errors- Now both
Ms- Valadez and Ms- Welsh after manv hours oreoarina and
correctina her affidavit still can not state the offenses
the applicant faced cbrrectly. First let me ooint out that
Count 3, par B. Is an impossible act to committe and could
not have been charaed as is- Second Count Count 5- oar-C-
is not indecencv but in fact sexaul assault- Third aooel~
138 PAGE 13
ellant could not have face thirteen charaes or qenvictions,
When the state wishes to charae mul tJ?le .... offenses in a single
indictment. it is reauired bv statute tq. set out each seP-
arate offense in a separate "count". Tex CodeCrim-Proc.ann.
art 21.24 (a). The separate "oaraaraPhs" within a sinale
count mav alleae different methods of committina the same
offense- Tex-CodeCrim.Proc.ann. a~t, 21.24(b.). But since
each "count Alleqes a sinale offense· an indictment cannot
authori~e more convictions then there are counts. Martinez
v. State 225 S.W.3d 550 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) Fourth, There is
the issue of double ieopardy. AS I tried to present at the
hearinq Count 7 and 8 is one victum with one offense. one
conviction and count 9 and 10 was also one .. victum with one
offense. one conviction- see victum's statements~ there was
only one incident and the evidence is clear- Mr- Callahan
refused to call Ms- Lindsav Green to.verifv the fact that
there was onlv one incident and that Ms Valadez did not
investaqate the facts or for that matter show the evidence
to defendant and explain the elements of the offense so when
he was told that it was in fact a lst dearee Aaa- Sexaul
Assault he had no reason to not plea to the lst dearee off-
ence offered. Fifth. I will add in this section that
counsel stated that she admonshed defendant the the renae of
punishment was anv where from 2 to 99 vears- She did not and
the court admonshed defendant ,that the range of punishment
was 5 to 99 veaars, If counsel had of oroperlv advised him
of the range of punishment he would not have plead to a
sentence of ten years over the max allowed.
#4) Ms. Valadez stated that defendant was e].iaible ~or,
139
PAGE 14
deferedadjudication. Ms Welsh Concurred. Aplicant tried
to prestent evidence that the C-C P 42.12 S(a) states that
the iudqe must announce in open court that deffrred adjud-
ication is in the best interest of the victnm. It is the
responseability of the defense to submit the evidence nec-
essary to prove the defendant is aualified to recieve def-
erred. I stated in the hearina I'm suaaestina that Ms
Valadez submitted no evidence or nottied me th~t was a cause
of-- when I was cut off by ms- Welsh and not allowed to
cont- and recieved no assistance for Mr. Callahan. The
trial judge at sentencina stated that there was no evidence
submitted on behalf of the defendant· where I stated "I
did not know what he had done with the names I had aiven
them to interview· The iudae found no miaataatina facts
excePt the one me Valadez metioned about the impact state-
ment made about defendant not carina about what he had done.
This was in the PSI report that Ms- Valadez did not PrePare
the defendant for- in fact defendant has never seen the PSI
rePort as he was not shown it bv trial counsel or even in-
formed what the report contained .
. #5) Applicant stated 21 fact specific alleaation in his
brief that Mr- Callahan refused to brina to bear at the hear-
ina- She allowed hearsaY evidence to be admited into the
record bv stipulation, and Ms. W~lsh used at the hearinq.
CR paqe 26 line 22, about an alleged assault that happened
20 years in the past that I would have denied if I had
seen the statement befor my direct appeal. Also Ms. Welsh
made statements about the lack of witnesses present at the
hearina RR Paae 32 line 7. Mr- Callahan refused to Present
140
PAGE 15
witnesses stating that there where no witnesses to testifv
of mv actual innocnece. I never ask Mr. Callahan to find
anv witnesses for a claim of actual innocence I would
like to know how and who he contacted for such a claim
Ms Welsh stated that"We have an affidavit that said------
So that will be UP to the court to decied and weiah all
that." ----"Ms Valadez has. as an officer of the court·
sworn in her affLdavit as to the------" "All right. In
her affidavit-- and you understand that the Judae can con-
sider the affidavit from Ms. Valadez and that he can con-
sider that when he makes his findings. ------" "And all
I want in front and on the record is that Hilda Valadez is
an attornev who been around for manv vears in this -- in
this citv and she aave an affidavit and she informed vou
of those thinas," " Ms. Welsh: Your honor, the state would
argue that MR. CHRISTENSEN"S TESTIMONY IS NOT BELIEVABLE.
That he certainly has every reason to not be honest and
forthright with this court. That the court has in front of
it an affidavit which the court is entitled to consider in
these matters• That they don't have to have live testimony.
Ms. Welsh, Mr. Callahan. and Judae Carruthers violated
applicants due Process riahts to a fair hearina it is
aoparent_Lba~_tbg_state never intented to nla~e Ms v~l~np7
under oath wheresh~ could be crossed, and Mr- Callahan as
well knew in advance that she would not be called bv th~
state. Judge Carruthers should have insured that she was
called as the aoolirant did infart dPmand of his ,..,.,,n,..,]
dtht he needed to ob1ect to her not testifina in person
APPlicant was unaware that his affidavits were not in the
141 PAGE f4,16
#6) Mr. Callahan aarueed applicant closing like that of an Ander's
brief •. with out stateina so counsel made contrarv arauement
if fact makina aoolicant's writ so to say frivolous. He failed
to assist applicant in anv way. As it is the defendant faced
adverse collateral consequences from potintial new sentencina
on remand. The state has no reasons to plea bargain with
the applicant the state could ask for a max Rentence and
since this is a seperate procceedina aoolicant loses the
rights provided with P.c. 3.03 and the court now possible
could stack this one sentence on too of thP RPntences
currentlv seru.;ng. When applicaant inquired with Mr.
Callahan about the state's intentionshe stArP~ ~h~~ as soon
as the state did brina me back he would file a motion to
dismiss all the counts · and he would inauire with the state
about rheir intentions. When the state confered with Mr-
Callahan and discussen these oosRible options that applic-
ant had· the state then decided to dismiss the count instead
of ooenina that can of worms. Which shows preiudice to
aoolicant· thAt the reformAtion of ~is judgement was not
proper as he would have faced new sentencinq. which the
court has stated recentlv "thAt a ludaement mav he rPformPn
~~ lnnn n~ ;r ~nQs not require resentencina- see Rodes v.
state 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex-crim-Aoo-20071, Statinq at 888"When
only one of the sentencina elemPnts is viod thP ltJdapmenr
is rendered void only if the iudqement can not be reformed
to cure the infirmity (i.e. the infirmity can not be cured
Mr. Callahan had many~.,
without resort to resentencinq).
legal cites avaibale to him such a-s-Ben.;~.aman v state. 874
S.W.2d 132 statinq that if provisions of a olea aarPPment lAtPr
Thp-efore regard-
bPcome qnPnforceable, plea is involuntarv
less of the source of non compelence it is alwavs true that
142
PAGE 17
that when a olea agreement is reached it must be enforced
as agree to, or the defendant must be given an opportunity
to withdraw his plea. See Shannon 708 S.W.2d 850, Adkins v.
state, 767 S.W.2d 809, ex parte Austin, 746 S.W.2d 226, Gibson
v. State 803 S.W.2d 318, ex parte Perkins, 706 S.W.2d 320,
court
ex parte Miller 921 S.W.2d 239, In ex parte Ervin the ruled
that the state can waive an illegal portian of a plea agree-
ment and keep the remainder, which is not relevant here as
the court remanded the count for new trial. see ex parte
Ervin 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.l999).
CLOSING
Applicant believes that Ms. Welsh in tatum with Mr. Callahan
withheld facts and evi~ence from the applicant. The state has an
affirmative duty to disclose the the defense evidence that is
favorable to the defendant. It is the duty of both the Trial
court and the state's attorney to conduct themselves so as to
ensure that an accused recievess a fair and full hearing. There
job is not ju~t tp procute and win cases, there job is to do
justice. This case highlight everything that can go wrong in the
criminal justice system when the system is not balanced. A writ
of habeas corpus will be granted for erroneous admission of evi-
dence only where the testimony is almost unreliable and the fact-
finderand the adversary system will not be competent to uncover
, reconize, and take account of its shortcomings. The Supreme
Court has stated that in habeas corpus proceedings, the primary
purpose is to assure that no one is unjustly imprisoned. There-
fore, if a prisoner is unaware of the legal significance of rev-
143 PAGE 18
event facts, it would be unreasonable to prohibit he's attemp
for judicial relief. While a prisoner should not be allowed to
abuse the writ of habeas corpus, he should not be penalized of
availing himself of access to the courts. The hearing judge
allowed the exculded evidence and testominy of such vital port-
ion of the case and that exclusion effectively preculded the
applicant from prosecuting his case. Relief may be granted,
not only where the state's attorney knowingly used prejured
testominy, but where the state's attorney suppressed or with-
held material evidence, where there are circumstances amounting
to extrinsic fraud which actually deprived the accused of a
fair hearing on the merits, prejudice is presumed. The evidence
was material and there is a reasonable doubt, and once unconst-
itutional suppression error is found, no further harmless error
analysis is necessary. Ms. Welsh's debliberate deception of the
court by presenation of known false evidence is incompatible
with rudimentary demands of justice. After conviction is obtained
the state's attorney is bound by the ethics of her office to
inform the appropriate authority of after-acquired or other
information that cast doubt upon the correctness of the convict-
ion. Because applicant is not an attorney and filing pro se, he
ask the reviewing court to liberally construe applicant's arguee-
ments and to encourge the court to elevate substance over form.
That applicant had a substantial cause of ineffective assist-
ance of trial counsel, but for his habeas failing to properly
assist him and provide effective counsel his writ failed. App-
licant ask the court to find that habeas was infact ineffective
and that the state's attorney withheld evidence and gave false
evidence at habeas corpus evidence hearing. Applicant prays
144 PAGE ·~ !"'f
that all applicant's points should be stained and' applicant
remanded to the trial court to answer t'he indictment.
Reapectfully Submitted,
~~'e
Bruce Christensen
applicant pro se
Polunsky Unit #1108982
3872 FM 350 S.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
inmate's declaration
I, Bruce Christensen, being presently incarcerated in TDCJ-ID,
Polunsky Unit, declare under penalty of perjury that the facts
stated in the above brief are true and correct, signed on this
the 15th day of June 2014.
fi~m~-
Bruce Christe~sen
Applicant pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bruce Christensen, applicant,, pro se, do hereby certify
,that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Memorandum
in Support of Application, Tx. Code of .Criminal Procudure §11.07
Was placed-in -the _prison mqil S¥Stem~on~this ,the_J,6t)L day_of -
June, 2014.
~J?<_· c{2;:Q;
ruce Christensen
-~-~
applicant, pro se ·
polunsky Unit #1108982
3872 FM 350 S•
Livingstone, Tx. 77351
145
EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
B~uce Ch~sitenaen § 231th Judicial District
Applicant, pro se §
§
PETITION FOR EVI:OENTA!U! UEl\RING
Motion fo~ Bench Warrant
Now comes, Bruce Chrieteneen, Applicant, Pro Se, in the above
Numbered abd wtrled cau••••nd files this, hla Petition for Bvid~n-
art. 11.07 ( 3 )(d), and would show the cou~t the followinll in sup-
port thm:eo£ 1
ONE
The court will find that there is definite •controvered,
defE>lH~antl> tinaJ. conviction e:dst and needs to be resolved. Thl'b
court should fino that there ill! r~ neceao~~i ty fca: the suspension of'
time limatiana enunciated in article ~1.07 of the tex. Coda Criro.
Prac Ann. art. U.O'Y §3(d) Vernon Supp. 2004. Applicant haa alle<;jed
the following illlllHJes which fequi!'7ea resoilution:
1} Ineffilc::ti ve ll.asi.st,;mee of Coun.sd
3) States improper modification of dehndiMta judgement
4} Trial court'fll denial of defendant's right to tully particate.
'I'I~O
The fact and alle\jationlll preo~~ent\\'d irl his pet:i tion IU'e com-
plex, but applicant. has infact alleged .sufficient hct/3 tErgal·ntitle him to relief.
The trial court is the apprQprh.te fot·m for finding of fiilctsoApp-
146
licant has sufficient proff of all his allagation~, which needs
to entered into the record and fully expJ.red and developed for
the x·ecord
THREE
I am presently incarcerated in TDCJ-:tD, Polunsklf Unit, 3872
FM 350 South 1 tiving·etone, Tx. 77351. I am unable to pe:r·sonally
appear before the court and give t.•'>stimony in this cause and
would rll:spectfully request the to Issuf, a warrant from the bench
ordering th<;; Bexat· County Shtif.iff to tt·ansport mE to thh~ court
for all hearing;;;;. in this matter, ~;q that I may give tent:imony and
present evidence and proff of all my allagations.
PRiWER
Petitioner respectfullu prays that this court grant this
petition for an evioenoary hea:cing ana for a bench warrant to
atf:end the hearings. To consider and examine the issues before
the vour·t and grant any and all such relief as the court may deem
he is entitled by law.
ci:'~;;:~
Chili~
Bruce se
Polunsky Unit UlOB 82
3872 F!~ 350 S.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
147
June 15,, 2014
Donna Kay McKinny
Bexar County Clerk
101 w. Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Ms. McKinny,
Inclosed is my Memorandum is Support of Application, of my
11.07 mailed earlier. Please file it with the papers of this
cause and notifiy the court and the State's Attorney, providing
them with a copy. Thank You for your time and effort in assist-
ing me.
a=¥~~~e Ch~nsen
Applicant, pro se
=
Polunsky Unit, #1108982
3872 FM 350 S.
Livingstone, Tx 77351
148
149
t IN ?H~ DISTRICT COURT
vs. § 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§ 8BXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF APPBAt
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COtlllT:
Now acmes Bruce ChriatanQsn, Dafandant in tha abovM antitlad
and numbered aaase, an1 gives this writtun notice o£ ap~••l to toe
for a Writ of M~ndawu~
leapeatfully DUbmittad,
~'.~
:;;t
~
'
CJ"
{)~
'fhil!l is t~l certifl! tt1at on «QobeJ.' 3, 2014, (jl l:t.ut! !:llld correct
post paid, on th• 3rd day of Octobar, ~014. to the fallowing,
addt."E>/5/00S ~ Donna .rtay Nckinny
B•xar County District Clerk
101 w. Nu•v•• Suita 217
SAn Antonio, Tx 78205
·"hl<.lge Gic! llarle
226th distr:ict Cot1rt
Be••~ CoUilt~ Courth6use
300 Dolor.o~;G
San Antonio, Tx 78205
CoUt't of; Appeals
~ ~th Court of App;;.als_,Di~i,:dct
~00 Daloroaa, su1te ~~o~ 1
san Antonio. Tx 7fa.qs ,, .
\ J '
150
r
I
I I ZG!~ OCT - b t p 2: I(!I
DEPUTY
i]l'(: ·::.< •
------~
I'
!
l
I
I
!
I
I
l
151
2001-CR~4986-W-i 3
EX PAT.RE . \ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ 226th JUDICIALaDXSTRICT
BRUCE CHRISTENSEN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
DESIGNATION OF RECORD
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, the Appellant and files this Designation of record
on Appeal, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,' and
request that the clerk and court reporter of t:his court make
153
' lin OCT -b I P 2: I Ill
DEPUTY
!)'(: _ _ _
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
154
2001-CR-4986-WR
EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes Bruce Christensen, Defendant in the above entitled
and numbered cause, and.gives this written notice of appeal to the
.Co1:1rt State of Texas from a denial of a petition
for a
:c'>- :,;;:_·
...j•
' I ......,
= ~~
("")
..,.. :::M
;,_,:O.
c.. 0
t_,_ ("") zn
-1 CD
LO -;r>c;: "TJ
I .Z;!+}l.......,_
1
..... ruce Christensen ~·~:·· 0"1 --'"l-•_r
c> ,-·)rq
(_)
0 Hughes Unit, #ll0898;t;; -~~ '"'0 4: _:;~·t.J
Route ~~ Box 4400 ·, \ii(~ :X ~:;) :;.?'
._;. -1"
~
>-
(:;)
Gatesvllle, Tx 76597 0 'c'~
)c~
s::. -t~~
•
-
N
c.n
c.n
....... .. ,,
:--~
~
>-·
.....
. ..,}
["'"'~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on October 3, 2014, a true and cor~ect
copy of the above Notice of appeal was placed in the u.s. Mail,
post paid, on the 3rd day of October, 2014. to the following,
addresses: Donna Kay Mckinny
Bexar County District Clerk
101 W. Nueve, Suite 217
SAn Antonio, Tx 78205
Judge Sid Harle
226th district Court
Bexar County Courthouse
300 Dolorosa
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Court of Appeals
· 4th Court of Appeals District
300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200
San Antonio, Tx 7 5
155
' .,_
•:· .·•·
156 \
2001-CR-4986-W-4 'J
EX PATRE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
DESIGNATION OF RECORD
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, the Appellant and files this Designation of record
on Appeal, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and
request that the clerk and court reporter of this court make and
prepare the following matters for inclusion in the record:
l. (Original) Motion for Writ of Mandamus
2. (Amended) Motion for Writ of Mandus
3. Motion to Excute Writ of Mandamus
4. Petition for an Evidence Hearing with attachments l-30
5. Index for 2001-CR-4986-W-3
6. Criminal Docket sheets for all causes inculding 2001-
CR-2632 and 2001-CR-4986
7. Memorandum in Support of Application
8. State's Response DATED JUNE 11, 2014 1 NOT MAILED UNTIL JUNE 17, 201~
9. Orders Dated JUNE 13, 2014 Not Mailed until June 25, 2014
10. Clerk's Certificate
11. All corspondence directed to the Court, Court Clerk, and
The criminal court adiminstrator.
12. Letter from applicant notifying clerk of missing parts of
the record to be filed with application to the court of
Criminal Appeals Rec 7/2/14.
13. any and all exhibits used by the State or Defense in this cause
14. Transcription of any hearings, or conferences in this cause.
15. Note-- Transcrites and exibits from hearings Nov. 16 1 2006
and Dec. 11, 2006.
157
15. Defendant's Designation of Record on Appeal.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appellant respectfully
request that the clerk and the Court Reporter of this Court, as
well as anyprior or substute court reporters, will make and pre-
pare all of said foregoing materials and inculde them in -the-rec=------ ----- ___ _
ord in the Appeal of this cause.
Respectfully Submitted,
~Mg~
chi ensen
ruce
Hughes Unit #1108982
Route 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, Tx 76597
CERTIFICATE OF SEVICE
This is to certify that on October 3, 20014, a true and correct
copy of the above Designation of Record was placed in the u.s. Mail
post-paid, to the following addresses:
Court Of Appeals
4th Court of Appeals District
300Dolorosa, Suite 3200
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Donna Kay McKinny
Bexar County district Clerk
101 w. Nueve, Suite 217
San Antonio, Tx 78205
Judge Sid Harle
226th District Court
300 Dolorosa
San Antonio, Tx 782
~Q
158
CAUSE NO. 200l-CR-4986-W3
EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Bruce Chrsitensen § 226th Judicial District
Applicant, pro se §
§ Bexar County, Texas
§ § § § § § § § § §
PETITION FOR EVIDENTARY. HEARING
Mo·tion for Bench Warrant
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now Comes, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, Pro Se, in the above
Numbered abo styled cause, and file.s this, his Petition for Eviden-
tat·y Hearing ana a Brech wasrant undel;' the provisions of T.c.c.p,
art. ll.07(3)(d), and would show the court the :E,ol.lt;lofing i.n aup-
port thereof:
ONE
The court will find that th,ere. is ¢1efinite "controvered,
previously unresolved facts, which tu:e material to legality of
defendants final conviction exist. and needs to be resolved. The
court should find that there is a necessity for the suspension of
time limations enunciated in article 11.07 of the tex. Code Crim.
Proc Ann. art. 11.07 §3(d) Vernon Supp. 2004. Applicant has alleged
the following issues wh~ch fequires resoiution:
1) Ineffictive Assistance of Counsel
2) Incomplete Reeord-records withheld, altered, removed,missing
3 3) States irnprqpet· modificatH:m of defendants judgement
4) Trial court's denial of defendant's right t~ fully particate.
TWO
The fact and allegations presented in his petition are com-
plex, but applicant has infact alleged sufficient facts regarding
counsel's performance that, if true might entitle him to relief.
The trial court is the appropriate form for finding of facts.App-
159
/
llcant haa sufficient p~aff of all hi~ alla~•tlone, which need•
Petitioner re•pactfullu pray& that this court grant thi•
pllltition for an evidencnu:y hearing anc( fot• a bench w•n·rant to
Ret~pect;fully
.. Submitted,
""'~.,.,Jli;;::::
,
(~~-._,) . (\' . ..
~.eP I \\ ;.
~ruc;"'i5ii~ a· lllnl$~an 1. %>to s~
l?oluntlltJ' Unit ~11013982
3fl7:2 FM 350 S.
Livlny•tone, Tx 77351
160
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB
Oct, H, OS
Document 11-2 Filecl 03/3~e ~~ 7
Ju~ga Sld \... Herla
22Bth Judicial Olatriet
Bexar County Courthouse
300 Deloroaa St,
san Antonia, TX 75205
~~ Causa No. 2DD1-~-491SB-V1, Oafandanta Aaaponca
Inclosed ln ay Aaeponae to Ms. Valadez ••<-A~ ldavi t, which
I raelavad today the 11th due to her have ~an given an lapropar
addraaa l"ar ao. Pl,.aae (Ji-iea ay ilctlon to onf<:>rca, and allow
. . to fila thia affidavit ln raaponaa. I aant all of the Jl
pollee reporta that- I had t you to be l,_,lll!d ln my -orandua
ln support of my epplication. 1 hav~ raqueatad that the Oiartict
clark notify lf. aha had raoiavad ay Maaorandua and the attsch. .nta
aant the week later, 1 have had no rwwponea froa her and aha
rafuaea to give thla defendant the aoet ca.aon curtoday even
with the S.A,S,£, inoulded eo aha nee no $ expanse to eail the
requaet 1nfor.-tton. So ell I can hope ia that the ~aaorand~
ln eupport of ay application endh tchna sant a weak late eri
a part of the fila and have been lnculded 1~ 1&~818iM8i thi•
proo••· Thank you for you tlaa and efforte ~nvloved in thie
..
RapactFully Subelted,
/]
/
''
79107-9696
161
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/~~~ 7
•• --~IV__'~.(--~--------
CAU. NO. 1001·Cf'I......._Wf
J
f 128th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
I
AFFIDAVIT
Thia l!lf'f'ldavit la in ratSPC>ft- 110 Htlda Valadaa'a al'f'id1rdt
reolaved by •• on the 11th d.$ or OotGber iOOi, and a.We the
Folloainw etot. . ent;
14e Valadez hea uno• ">lilin r .. u~d to pr-apperly invaut:8gata
thia case and tha indlataent end h . . aiea etatad the Paata. t~
lndlatment charged • total of t•n caunta with two oounte having
thrae pmr1111o1r•pha describlniii three dl"'•,..nt ••Y• ilo o-•11: the
eeae cf'f'anoe. Thea• oounte ware aa.altad in 1914 and 1995,and
the law in af'f'act at the tl . . would have not allowed theea caubta
to be ateakad.Sha la correct in that there . . . three altn••-•
asking e complaint, the Firat witneaa alle~ad that the of'f'enc. .
oocourad in ..... 199S, 199__ , The indiotaenc daBCrlb. . three
of'l'enoaa, wiilh thraot leaear inculdad ol'f'ancea. Tlw a110ond wltnaaa
ellagotf the thtt oFPena" aocoured in 1914, the lndta-t deacl"ib . .
one incident, with tao t"ttttS dil'f'arant aeana two oa..lt the
of'f'anaa one beln; a lasaor lnouldad charge, The third wltna ..
alleged ilhat: the af'l'enca aooour'ed ln 1S9! 1 thla ••• alao liatad
•• ~wo count:a daeorlblng one ol'l'enca. The f'lr'at: (oount • II)
o"""r911 l.a al!x~l -••ul t w/old ld •• the vlotua I! ••• f'll'tlcon
at: t:!ttt ti1ne. Her birthday • - tt••-d•y ol" , 111a4, -
ehown on the pallaa reports ·~~tt~d by ~h~ ol'l'laara aallad tt
tna her hoaa. Alae the oPf'idavit of Detective Maltan, Thle
avldenoa ie in tho court record and ln appl1oat:'a a~randu. ln
auppcort of' applloetlon f'or wrh.
Qal'andant dld not (••• nat) q~viaed th•t the eantana. . aal"a
to run o~,currant •• sho•n on tho plea lllltlll barglan, page
101 1 oourt raaord, or that th~ punlaha•nt range bagaln at !!2
years, •• it: I.e clear-ly •t:•t:•d ln th• court'• ect.onle'-t and
dal'andent•e ••lval"• anri al'f'ldavlt: of' adaonltlo~, ~ega 104-101
CauPt llaoard, that ilh'" !)Ufti8hlllttftll rM1ga waa "i yaar10 110 !9 yaal"8 1
162
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 21
end .that.all three oeunta aggr.vatad •••aut a . .autt o~ • Chlld
!'anal Cede • - · l!l'.OlL't. all· t:hraa oaunt:e • ~lrat: dagr. . ~alony.
Da~andant plead to ~~• oounta and raolavad • thirty year
eent:anoa l'or •••n - ttt•toh the e~our\; daclad
tf".,.aol"lpt: wUl ahow, that; t:ha Judge •••'--•d that:
nr. to 1"\11'1 conourrently end aed• notation llo t:ha
caeaant l'roa Me. Valnd~z or Mr, Su~. 8ea !'age t tt, Court:
l'leoord.
fi4w V•ladax f'a11ad to pP'Opper lnvnt•u•t• tho lndi~:~tlllont
•w•in•~ the defendant and ~o aavlee h!a of the d!ff'opoent ahara--
end the dl !'I'a rant: r.n.,.s af' punlahltftnt of' each, nor wea ahe
owaer of' the poeelble conquencea of $$t alloa1ng ~e court to at:aok
the . .nt:e~e• ehl~ Nould h~v• than bean anouther eapaot: of the
plead bargain tlt ~t wou!8th••• ba.n unet:telnahls Nnd r9eeon f'or
epp. . l. Thera 1• no refteon to allow the deFendant to plead guilty
to • first degree felony when the charge Ia a ewcond degree
f'elony end accept ten y8wrs ~~• then w)lcwed by lew, 4~ no
tiaa did aha I$$ ctate that the de¥.ndant ••• to rsclave one
eent:.nae, f'aot ie the record iw olwer that the deFendant plead
gullty end reaievad thirty yaere on eeoh count. See pwgw12 end
pwge___ , Court record.
Aa fer ae 111•• Valadez'• trial 181 prapert:lon end negotietlone
with the dletriat Att:errtey'e of'l'lee, The only reeeon that ~he
O.l'endent'• pratrlel ~lee reached fc~~tean eont:he ie thwt Ne,
Grand Jury 1:he1: hed lndlated hlo
ehe
.... ••
Veleda:a: dld not react propperly when it wee r-ell:z:ed that the
not paneled propperly,
even inf'oraed hl• thllt i t heppened end the poeeibh
ne~er
ctregit!ea pcealble l'ect io •h• did rtc.i: liven ahriW up in court:
the dey (Sept 10, ZOOf) when the stetee ettcrney stated eome-
thlng ebout needln~ to look et thw lndlcteent, S8 ehc dldnat
even begen to negotete untlll Mwrch 2e, 200e when the def•ndent
hed been lnaeraereted For fourteen •onthe, ehe took edvent•w•
ol' denendent:'• eitueltion a end billed the court two eepwrete
fee'• for been eppolnted oouneel. She requwetad ~he eppoi~aent
or ., invwetegetor whioh dld nothing to lnveetegetw c:tel'endllnt:e
oeae by ln•••ed epan• hie billsole ti . . to a nothar da¥andant of'
Me. Veldeez'e a Mickel Tuo~er wno wac oh3r,ee alth MUrder. t~
the docket ahewt (whloh ••• not enoluded In the wppael record)
would be lnveete~wted t lt would ehow that: she Pelted to ~how
163
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 21
up ~a the derendent'• court det••• When he eek the court pereanel
wbout t.he where ebo~e or Me, Veled••• the aoeeent emde "en well
thatHlldo". When l requweted to ••• the evldenee egalnet . .
ehe etat•ltl teoh11 11he dietrlat attorny'aopenf'lh pollc:r en
IIUf'rtaient, but thet l wee not ellawmd to handle the n la,
tr t hed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , , undaretaod the chergea egelnet
...and
-·" thll evld...ce preeantad, I would not plead
to the ;:>le., ~JIH"(jt:ln 1 e2 pP"~t;!t"tnt.ed. The: dei'Mdfl"'t Ill ne>t guilty
........
of •aile of the <:>h~>rg.,., F-r~Seent;ed to th .. lndietmmnt. Kh••" I though11
waa child ebus~ end whet the low la era nat the aeme, but
Sf$ whot 1 did do wuo· co ahe:u~Ful pnd bnd tht!t: I wat- eonv lnced
that llh"t l did ..... "'lOW• Sexeul """"ule, "'""" th"'·•.Jh lt • .,.,
not. Tha ,.. ...... !)M .. ~bet thie n..op .. n .. d is nat & ree•c.n to bw tiill'aonted •
Writ. B~.tt It <;Joes t''4'recan1:: th•-t N.t ~"lee .,.. not fre"ll! ;oivlniii•
But the M¥in F•ot ie Ms. Velodua'u e~at&•ont th~t th.Waa~d
co~1leln wltne9s~• ware yaunQer ~het fourt~en and let•r I tn
.Jenu•ry 2001 w.,re yaun,.er then ••venteon, le ell ao nvt OOI"ract
"l..indeey Grol0f1 ·,..,. i' Htrnaetn when the ,.lleiJed ae,.IOul t oocoUI"ed,
Thue egea of tno ohild reaslly would hi8Va 1:o d01tereine t.n"
chsr~~ thet 1:ho1 defend-ant .:t'lt thOJ whera .. u DfJQ• so .. uO>l As'tl•ul't.
Not to heve the etete •are• to n;:,t; eteolo: th;a ttertt•nc••· .,.,.,
()"P"Cil 'ly .~~~~i~~ed,
·~1~ v,{~~
.• .
I!---~.-~
·'
·-·--·~-----------
eruc .. l.::hrt&t;en.. en
I, Bruce Chrleteneen, p~tltlaner, ~ in t~e ebave atyled
end e.pti<1ned .,f'fldevlt do en !PtOeer under pe.,.lt1•• or puf'jury
thet the ~ollo•lng •t•t . .•n* •ad•
ln thl• a~fidevlt ere true
end oof'reet to tha best ol' My 'lllbllltte,. ""'r! \.l'lowl•dg .. , on thl•
the 1Zth d•y I' October ZOO&,
-----·~
C\"'e!ifii.R'~wm.·.r
8601 lpur 591
164 .a..rUlo,TX 79107•989!5
Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11,2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 21
CAUS! NO, 2001-CR-418S•W1
ltX PAI'ITf: § IN THE DISTI'IICT COURT
I 22Gth JUDICIAL DISTI'IICT
BEXAR COUNTY. T~XA9
SUP~IH~NTAL AFFIOAVIT
This supplemel"1tel ~ffioevit I.e to be in raeopnsll! in
oonjuatlon with tha afl'idai'Jvit ~lsn"d ,.., 'Jct.8b .... 1?tO,, 2005,
and makes tha fall~•l~g 8t~t~msnt:
At no time w~e the def~nd~Mt ~dvier.d that the Plea Ber-geiM
wae to to avoid at~okinG, The ~tet~ oFfered • sentPMee o'
35 years, period wl~h no other s~lpletlone For the rirst 13
monthe oF M~. V!:!Idez':; rourti"t~n mont:L1~ of trial pr-eopetion,
and on Merch 27, 06 t~r- off'<'r ~henr;!ld t~ lli! a cfto of 2'5 l'"~r"
•nd to r-~mein eilient of th~ ~ppllcatioM For pr-obation. ~~ver­
did M~. veladez Fuggest th~t it w•• b~Re to pl~~d to ~ Flr-st
degree oFFence when tha Indictment ~herged orly n ~~cnnd
degr-ee orrenc~, or- the the punishment rang~ For thRt of'en~e
range wea fro~ 2 to 20 y~ere l•t elone t~et th~ court could
•~ntence me to thirty y~ars on it.
She atet~d thet Ehe edvle~d ~~ th~t th8ro wez thirte~n
oounte 1 (Wh~r~ I h~ve ~tst~d th~t ehe 5dvls~d ~e thPt It •~•
for te~ count~ or ~S2• ~~w~ul ~s~~ult) ~ut fF t~~ indiuotment
ie lnve~teg~t~d prcpoerly it wtl 1 b~ fcL1~d ~~~~t it b~~~kz ~own
to ! , With w!tnes• onu~ber one. the>r los -?o; WA'!' L•l""'-l'j~r- t,_,"! .'!gl! 0~ 14
!n 1!'134 1~~91 :$l1d OVn,s~· onde'.;' Section 21.02!, 21.11.
22.0.21, (i}:,
years of B.~·:e at th111! time of tht~ conmd.r:.sid of v:tolat.icne of n,ore than on0 sr~~ction; or
(B) for· \·thich a t-'.lf::·a ag:c~,ment i.VCt~';l l:-eachf0 in t.1 C(;U;c iri tr;hich t.ht::
accus~t·r:l vJa.u ch<:!l:"tJetl with more than one o:t;;:.1·1.se l:l..:;;t(;·d .in ParagL~B.ph (A} committt:'<"l
asain~;t a victum young<::t thtti: 1'1 yea;:·s of. c:;ge at tr1c t inK• of thee condnissicn
of the~ vi0.1.ntion,s c;f the sam~:; t:'<:.'ction motT~ thc.tn <:1nce Qr i:-..:~ char·;jDd \·lith v.iolc1.tions
c·i: Lfrovid;r law is continued in effect fot· that purpose."
169
Apr.il 22, 2013
JudgileSid Harle
226th District Court
Bexar Bounty Courthouse
san Antonio, Tx 78205
Dear Judge Harle,
I ~