 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JEANNETTE J.CLACK WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PHlL|p J_ DEVL{N
CLERK OFCOURT ' 501 west s"' street, suite 1100 CHIEFDEPW
Austin, Texas 78701 '
August 19, 2015 _ RECE|VED |N
t COURT oF chMlNAL APPEALS

Court of Criminal Appeals ` , ‘
P.o. Box 12308 r AUB 21 2015

Austin, Texas 78711

To Whorn lt May Concern, AbezAcoSta, Clerk

The enclosed documents were received on August 17, 2015. It appears they were addressed to
us in error and are intended for your court.

If this office can assist you in any other manner, please let us know.

Very truly yours,

JEANNETTE J. CLACK, Clerk
By:_Deputy Clerk/AD

CC: Dietrick Lewis Johnson, Sr.

’ dyeing Lv ~g_:;m§-W 3a . ga.$g;z'@|

 

 

\‘LZS\~Q?B RECElvED IN
40
CQJQL' Q’ v d gg,q.éd~to,§ gm adm(;L_;,¢ QW¢YOURT oF chMINALAPPEALs
, `; / ‘ >Q 9§=,@'~\©
é?`, _<¢, %C»AQMQN'." `T&xo/§ 7773© _AUG 212015
37;/,¢~@" Aeeiaeesraelerk`

 

1\1 \¥\§. C¢;)C‘T" &F QQ~;/\A:'{NAL. AYQEAL">
QF “‘T’é>¢,QS

 

‘\>c>, \A)Q’ XZ) SSQD.~@\

':’N §§ >:-.:EjQ-r¢;\< LL=,V¢:§ ;._;'L;H\\§¢M §Aj M

'\/\\ AO()\_T<;AT~'L*>¢\\ grid v\/?_~"" ¢\F M.§N>AML>§ '

TCAQ§¢ /\@§ 91::2;2:»~1 ama 3\~=¢ 31;>33 ;)@1;,)’ 21¢:1»33<?0';~,°3€)1:

 

 

 

 

”_T:' \.-\A\/E Gc\lClmS€\F \‘cl£ €:L\_m,./IALC», Wr»,crg.!\/\E/\u""'$ FC_J(L

\A"z£ @E\/IE\X/`_ _§::M<€T S-\éELT' CA§£ r\lc:> 3\‘1 'Z\SSl-t &\\h
\DA=:; :M M§T~:Q\( AQ@:L \§ ,3¢3\§ 8@\“ wmerL
¢HQN& £em~¢>§ \,\/G’¢¢ cJ-;"'.'t-mél_\ 8 "T\;is 02@4/§:;':¢,\\

 

 

. /
§ "" /\/§» , __ \¢JAS _T(r\\j €q\/c¢<\ i§‘-' lM€ >6&~§£.
Q - l '._F-. l _' ”" c __' .§
¢= é’."" "" E§ 51 £T’ZM£N‘."' csc '_'£'/\AM‘T'A¢\T F:<\<"’."S

 

 
    

 

 

:\:\££`£ .TL>\ &/{em>§\.c'r' £QL& nF

':'~J.'t`\xg§.$‘ .'_;Me§¢_l"d\,x.` \ @"7' \A)£“‘"`“"z:€ l-\AR
>…Q (`/\0\\ 1~§ \_c_'°'."TSL`§ c\}€<=~"" T'r./\~ \ \£§L\_t§&_
CQNSG L A\h> s’."‘»';z g \,J£J.'£ )"'E »MEI \/n€&;¢§m»o"'” .:r~(~

T§§,§§ AN> ML,M¢~, >>¢mmsmq‘:;-a /52&3§11:'.¢>.::.4¢
Wl',‘;§(‘ml\a.p:.`r‘.l
/

 

 

 

/""'1'¢.'>'\\1 SQ)d/\i 13€>\§
F\S`J\P<A_:i §§ 7:€`2£') A‘.IV\

&~151@:.`)"3 ,, .. _ _

6:1\1@& "~.C” QAN““' 1 $E€M"`_'° 1a <_:11~;“.'\1~1> am "TFFa
Ql-im\i€ At\i?__' ND\A/ EML U\x";"a> \l-i*;.;`é LT.'/\.\E cf

 

 

\/C.zNC \rJl-l/-VTC_‘ \m) A£Z
141 , , §»_

 

 

 

 

' 101¢\1"‘" m\t&&m\d \n/E;LL_ .1HA'1" 5 Er\\m_deG-i AFT+AT »»

"' ')

(/mE-.~_ 11:31)_ 1116 L§@b §§ `/`\/_\_€ac:-€L,L Aoa-:L-!

 

iva 1,.,;‘.\;9§‘ 1137 ,TSA\.L' CA§1§5§11‘°°" g \_L‘,

3 CFL. \D'. 511 TSA:AH \'. \'Z

 

.-.\-t@\_A/we£., ::: ¥&A> 1\1}_1l 411 1 §§ L.as';'
‘ d ' ` ‘1’/(`¢~/\15"’1511'\.”1_`| 1§"1.'¢&’\ Q/\\~ -\_Y'i£,-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    

`/
.:v ‘ 1

01 >1""&/\1».

 

     
  

QA§£ 1\1;:>. li. LZC:Z>`<X

W‘:MU>“@M~ "'"°“'°"“F
1 ” 3 1€'._:"_:’> _ § CE 1€1',~;;1€~.1'55""1'_ ..»;Q.»;.

_,/ 4 _ f ~ ~ / .-
\ 91 .1`.' .,1_ -",.; item l '~.

 

 

 

 

311 L~;-é€’°\i\ _V\c§; `d§g,§ 1

'\31€\,.` ""'1\`_¥1'¢1~\§ \h._> 1'¢\1 A>\[ch_€ §§ 159\);:§1@

‘_"'& ~/' gm 1 ‘_<> ‘_&j_¢;§oém_:> (‘§1£"

(.§. :AN'\ t\\C‘>\ {V\A`D FS`T'\H ADKIL§ _L\’b 1\11>1/\/\1\'3/1§4<§

_”E_Qg§§_§;@!v\€r\~ §:1\1 §§ oim\.dv€ EL§_¢ ”75`1§`1
/ ' (-\ d "'I'AM A \~b<l(

:. i;,, ;¢ .:`\ ‘ l-.§~ 1 l\D_\' ME.

 

 

 

 

 

.1"_'.\'1';\1 Q€C>C@Kéé§ .»q\\> .1 3~;_~ é. ;§""_Y' ~ ` "1\11:11." 'C.<c..`.

SD~£:/\ ALV\/Au8

3:@:"1;:< 14 C_J)_§c

 

Z§HIBIT-C

Q/é}; SFC“\{` names THE TEXAS PENAL c_oDE
§§

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20530
May 15, 2015

RE: The machination's committed by the State and U.S.'

Assistant District Attorney's as follows:

Dear OPR Dept.:
On Novenber 28, 2012, State of Texas case number's; "219- a
` 81234-2012, 2l9-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012, Assistant Dis-r
trict Attorney; "Cynthia A. Walker," postponed a 9:30 AM Pre-
Trial Hearing, with Honorable Judge "Scott J. Becker." resid-
ing. Further, drove to meet up with this Petitioners U.S. Assis-
tant District Attorney; "Tracey M. Batson,".whose the prosecutor
in defendants parallel case's;§to retrieve a copy of his Federal
(11)(C)(1)(C) Plea Agreement. 'D.A. Walker went to doctrine
the petitioner's federal (11)(C)(1)(C) plea agreement, to make
it suit her Aggravated Kidnapping case she was prosecuting again~
st this defendant in his State parallel case's. Further, in
federal Court, all weapon_giolation’s was dismissed against.
this defendant during plea negptiations. ' 3 ' 5
On November 28, 2012, at 1230 PM postponed Pre-Trial hearing
in Case NO. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905~2012.
D.A. Walker entered this federal plea agreement into the Court‘s.

record, now saying petitioner gave U.S. Marshal‘s verbal consent

(1)

:o search a parked,_locked vehicle on private property, where
a firearm was recovered. Therefore, they (Prosecutor's) doc-
trined the plea agreement to fit an Aggravated Kidnapping,

using the federal (11)(C)(1)(C) plea agreement as a confession

to find this petitioner guilty on all his State parallel case's.`

Under Texas Penal Code, Section 32.48 (Simulating Legal

Process) (a) A person commits an offense if the person reckless~_

ly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates

a simmons, complaint, judgment, or other Court process with
the intent to: (2) Cause another to; (A) Submit to the putative
authority of the document, or (d) If it is shown on the trial

of an offense under this section that the simulating document

was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a Clerk of a Court

or an Employee of a Clerk of a Court created or established
under the constitution or laws of this State, there is a re-
butable presumption that the document was delivered with the
intent described by section (a).

Gn November 28, 2012, State Assistant District Attorney
entered this federal (ll)(C)(l)(C) Plea Agreement, into the
States record to use as a confession against this petitioner.

After this petitioner saw that the State of Texas was using
his Federal Plea Agreement against him, he entered a Motion_
in Federal §ourt to withdraw his guilty plea. z
On;January 30, 2013, at petitioner's federal hearing to_

withdraw his guilty plea, the U.S. Assistant District Attorney,

had the State Assistant District Attorney actively participating-

fn the petitioner's federal hearing to withdraw his guilty plea,
on video and audio, sitting at the table for federal prosecuting
Attorney's.

On March 4, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge; "Amos
L. Hazzant," in his fact finding and recommendation to the
District Judge, was to grant petitioner a right to withdraw
his guilty plea and to take the case to trial before a jury.

On March 18, 2013, U.S. and State Assistant District Attor‘
ney's entered an Objection, certifying that'the State of Texas
would not use the Federal (11)(C)(1)(C) Plea Agreement as a
confession in petitioner's State parallel case's. Further;
knowing that the federal plea agreement was already entered
into the State‘s record "November 28, 2012," as confession,
five (5) months prior to even entering this objection March
18, 2013. l

On April 10, 2013, U.S. District Judge; "Marcia A. Crone,"
denied the Magistrate Judge fact finding and recommendation,
on the grounds that the State of/Texas certified that they
would not use the Federal.Plea Agreement as.a confession with
the State, and made the guilty plea stand. j

Pursuant to the Texas Penal Code, Section 36.04, Improper
Inffuence (a) A person commits an offense if he privately addres-
ses a representation; entreaty, argument, o; other communica§ion
to any public servant;who exercises or will exercise official
discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to in-

fluence the outcome of the`proceeding on the'basis of consider;

/

ations other than those authorized by law. (B) for purposes

if this section, "adjudicatory Proceeding," means any proceed~
ing before a Court or any other agency of Government in which
the Legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified
parties are determined.

Under the Texas Penal Code, section 36.02, Bribery (a)

A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly
offers, confers, or agrees to confer on auother, or solicits,
4'accepts, or agrees to accept from another: (l) Any benefits

as consideration for the recipient's decision, (Slam Dunk's

in both, State and Federal Court's, by getting the guilty plea
to stand), opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise

of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
(2) any benefits as consideration for the recipient's decision,
vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion
in a judicial or administrative proceeding; (4) (C) It is no
defense to prosecution under this section that the`benefit is
not offered or conferred or the the benefit is not solicited

or accepted until after; (l) the.decision, opinion, recommendaj
tion, vot;, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or 7
(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.

It's clear that this petitioner was tag deemed by State
and U.S. Assis}ant District Att%rney’s, who deceiyed the Federal
Court Judge's, simply to set themselves up with slam dunks in
both Court's. Further, denying this petitioner his 5th and

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, depriving

_..:,h.im. § __ 1' i S._h_ t__, _ t_? l d 11 s P rO,C e S S. .e_n.d;__§q ua.l_,__.P,.r.Q teg._.t_,i_.p. nl . ._o f then ;_l_a,.w, _, ,…

. ,l_.¢ .-- _...,__ _ ,

by denying him a right to take the case to trial before a jury.

Under the Texas Penal Code, section 37.03, Aggravated
Perjury, (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury
as defined in section 37,02, and the false staement: (l) Is
made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) Is Material; (b) An offense under this section is a fel-
ony of the third degree.

Section_37104, Materiality, (a) A statement is material,
regardless of the admissibility of the statement under-the rules
of evidence, if it could have effected the course or outcome
of the official proceeding. (b) It is no defense to prosecution

nunder section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that declarant mistaken~
ly believed the statement to be immaterial. (C) Whether a State-
ment is material in a given factual situation is a question of
law.

37.13, Record of a Fraudulent Court, (a) A person commits

. an offense if the person makes, presents, or uses any document
or other record with: (1) Knowledge that the document or other
record is not a record of a Court created under or established
by the constitution or laws of this State or of the United

States.

Respectfully submitted,

., ' .x

    

_,j.ii; l th/.¢{_./ l ‘

Dietrick Lewis Jo nson SR.
19831~ ~078 '
Beaumont FCC (MED)

 

Beaumont, Texas 77720

_.tP_. 0 BOX 260¢0 ._.,-, . .r

April 21, 2012

To Bay|or l\/|edica| Records of lrving,

l Gera|dine Caston, mother of Dietrick Lewis Johnson give authorization
to release the medical records for Dietrick Lewis Johnson (DOB June 20,
1965, Socia| Security XXX-XX-XXXX). Dietrick is currently incarcerated
and has brain cancer. Please fax his medical records to his attorney
Terri Danie| at 877-291-1215. lf you have any questions, l can be
reached at 773-221-2590. Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Gera|dine Caston

February 23, 2014

Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.
Case No. 4:12~CR88 and 4:13-CR88, State of Tean
Case No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012

De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.
Rafael De La Garza, ll

CC: Andrea Stroh Thompson District Clerk, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Clerk of
Court

Subject: Machinations of the Prosecution, Suppression of favorable eye
witnesses.

Dear Mr. De La Garza:

There is still a reasonable solution which will prevent the state administration from
sporting the black eye that was so rich|y deserved by the United States District Attorney Offlce.
l reiterated my previous request that you join with the trials Judge in requesting production of
documents and discovery, under _Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This was a painful ordeal for both attorneys (|n the above mentioned case numbers).
The defendant did not wish to portray you or your oche as incompetent, but rather as a victim
of the machinations of the prosecution. lt is not my belief in which, controls the courts'.
However, the sixth amendment mandates that your office should be willing to do whatever it
could to achieve simple justice.

Attorney Terri Danie|, before leaving my state case's as my counsel, had information as
to the whereabouts of two eye witnesses who talked with the complainant at (3029 Barnes
Bridge St., Da|las, TX 75228) the day of 03-21-2012.

These eye witnesses for the defense were an investment as a community and created a terrible
liability for the state and its charging instrument

Remedy: ”The eye witnesses provides evidence that complainant was not being held in any
fashion, against her will or abducted as communicated on a sworn, lega|, government and state
document". Both court officials held knowledge of their existence.

Since it can be proven that the complaining victim falsified legal documents with an
insurance agency, irving and Da|las Po|ice Departments, there is no other legitimate conclusion
that can be reached by reasonable minds other than that Ms. Love had the understanding with
the state to which she submitted a sworn, signed affidavit

Offer Proof: ”This 2003 Lincoln LS, V|N 1LNH-M86$33Y677740, was fixed at the Ford dealership
located at Beltline Rd. and Highway 30 in irving or Grand Prairie, Texas in January of 2012.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Note to Attorney: You need to contact Psychologist Gilda Kessner (214-455-7692), Psy. D, Pc.,
PO. Box 181954, Dallas, Tx 75218. ‘

Faithfully yours,

Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.
T.D.C.J. #01894476

Michael Unit

2664 Fm 2054

Tennessee, Co|ony, Tx 75886

February 23, 2014

RE: State of Texas v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. ,
Case No. 4:12-CR88 and 4:13-CR88, State of Texas
Case No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012, and 219-82905-2012.

De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.
Rafael De La Garza il

CC: Andrea Stroh Thompson District Clerk, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Clerk of
Court,

Subject: File motions, to compel compliance with States Plea Agreement and Force the
iudgment of the Trial Court.

Dear Mr. De La Garza:

l receive your letter dated January 14, 2014. You stated that your office contacted the
AUSA to inform the US Marshalls. Have we come so far that the defense can't trust the state or
its administration to play fair and must continually be there saying ”obey court orders, obey
court orders”? Regarding the Fiasco of the Coilin County Sheriff's Oflice failure to obey court
orders.

Under the rules of iaw, your office must file a motion to compel compliance with Plea
Agreement, and enforce iudgment of the Trial Court. Emphasis that per the agreement, state
time has to run concurrent with Federai sentence, and by being sent to the state first prevents
fulfillment of the plea agreement As the defendant can only be credited for time actually in
Federai custody.

Your office must file motion to Federai court for an order of Recovery, urging that the
state only had temporary jurisdiction and request a motion to enforce the courts judgment
Per Plea Agreement stress the times lost while being in states custody, and request in motion
the good time credit you failed to mention during my sentencing i was arrested 03-26-2012,
nearly two years time served in Coilin County Jail.

lt seemed to me to be the definitive statement that courtroom officials are unable to comply
with time honored principle of law.

Faithfully yours,

Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.
T.D.C.i. #01894476

Michael Unit

2664 Fm 2054

Tennessee, Co|ony, TX 75886

The De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C. v
Rafael De La Garza, ii

3941 Legacy Dr. Suite 204-A192

Plano, Texas 75023

De La Garza ii

CC: State and Federai Clerks of the Court and Files

Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

Cause No. 4:12 CR00080 and 4:13 CR00088

State of Texas'v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

Cause No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012

Subject: Requesting that you file a Habeas Corpus-2255 Federai writ and motion
for summary ofjudgment; Requesting the Courts’ (state and federai) to Dismiss.

”| need you to file the following" Habeas Corpus~2255, Federai writ
Prosecutor misconduct Failure to disclose to the Court and Grand-Jury Brady
material (Brady v. Maryland 1963 Case).

Nameiy phone records (Text messages) the state prosecution subpoena
phone records April 15, 2013, that would proven to the grand-jury that the
complaining witness committed perjury and falsified state and government
documents.

File motion for summary of judgment Requesting the court to dismiss.

Grounds

1. Suppression of exculpatory evidence

2. Knowingly, willingly and intentionally used perjured testimony (name|y)
complaintant signed statement of facts which was presented to the grand
jury. f l

3. Citing Gatson, suppressed evidence was not a work product of the State or
Government. Deceit produced court Rulings under the Fourteenth
Amendment is a denial of Due Process.

Emphases added:

in the present case United States Assistant District Attorney and State
Assistant District Attorney is guilty of Suppressing Evidence Favora ble to the
accused, deceiving the trial courts during petitioners trial court proceedings

Had the defendant held personal knowledge and/or had possession of said
Favorabie Evidence he would not entered a plea of guilty in open court.`
Therefore, evidence would have changed the outcome of trial court proceedings.

Emphases added:
Cure:

Had this Favorabie Evidence (Phone Records and Text messages) been
presented to a grand jury and the courts; the accused would not had been
indicted in the State and Government charging instrument Therefore, the
outcome in the courts' proceedings would have resulted in a case dismissal.

Emphases added:
Vindictive Prosecution

The Courts’ believe that there is no room in the system for personal
feelings, prejudices, vendettas or any other machinations in the way of
fundamental fairness.

Faithful ly you rs,

Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

The De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.
Rafael De La Garza |l
3941 Legacy Dr. Suite 204-A192

Piano, Texas, 75023

De La Garza ll

CC: State and Federai District Clerks

Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.
Cause No: 4:12 CR00080 and 4:13 CR00088

State Cause No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012.

Standard Discovery Order in Criminal Cases for: Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

1. Ali written or recorded statements of the defendant along with all
confessions or statements whether verbal or otherwise made pursuant to Art.
38.22 C.C.P..

4. inspection of:

G. Ali tangible items of physical evidence collected by the State or its agents
concerning the alleged offense, to include latent fingerprints, footprints, hairs,
fibers, fingernails scrapings, body fluids, tire tracks, paint scrapings, etc..

10. Ali exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963 Case) and
related cases.

12. in appropriate cases, the state is encouraged to furnish offense reports and
witness statements in addition to the above items. However, such reports and
statements are normally work product of the state and are therefore protected
from mandatory disclosure unless the contents are exculpatory.

Such Statements and reports must of course be tendered to the defense for cross
examination on proper request under Gaskin or related requirements

Emphases Added

lViotion For Discovery was submitted to the States Court Docket sheet on April 11,
2013. The subpoena was issued for Metro Pcs on April 15, 2013, by the States
Assista nt District Attorney.

On Docket sheet the defendant wrote numerous inmate correspondences to the
state trial judge and prosecuting attorney from December 5, 2012 to February 13,
2014; requesting phone records and text messages to show that the complaining
witness gave perjured signed statement of facts to the grand jury.

Furthermore, defendant also contacted the United States District Judge
Magistrate and Assistant District Attorney about phone records and text
messages on numerous occasions.

Discovery and subpoena was ordered and signed by iudge Scott J. Becker on April
11, 2013.

Faithfully yours

Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

        
 

-i.\ §§ ¢}_w:>~
` CD ?-"_=?L>,_<j l Lri
Exhibit 10 § $i».l,,__ C;,
i--,_i>: ~
c ;:'~Jz~_..
e'*i-LTC
W219-81234-2012-HC cp 523
mf.f.r_y
§ ~¢x°iu§ ..
53 E>
In the ;_’ 55 o >.
, "'~ co

Ex parte Dietrick Lewis 'Johnson

§

§ _

§ 219th District Court
§

§

' of Collin County, Texas ~

Request to Designate Issues

il

The State of Texas moves this Court to enter an order designati- g

issues of controverted, previously unresolved fact to be resolved.

j 1.
On May 14, 2014; the Clerk served the State with the Application for

writ of habeas corpus filed lby Dietrick Lewis Johnson (Applicant) pursuant
to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. ll.07.

2.

An application filed under Article ll.07 provides for a prompt review
by the trial court to determine Whether the application alleges any facts that
iftrue, could entitle the applicant to relief See art 11.07, § 3(_0`). li"th,e court
determines ~that controverted fact issues do exist, it shall enter an order
designating the issues of fact to be resolved Ia'. § 3(d); see Martin v.
Hamlin, 25 S.W.3d 718, 719 (Tex. Crim. A.pp. 2000) (holding the trial court

has a duty to designate issues if it determines a habeas application contains

controverted issues). Upon entry of an order designating issues, the clerk
need not forward the application ».to the Court of Criminal Appeals for 180
days. TeX. R. App. P. 73.4(b)(5).
`3.4
Applicant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping after a plea
bargain and sentenced to 60 years’ confinement l

4.

Applicant alleges prosecutorial misconduct, that his plea bargain is
not being followed, ineffective assistance _of trial ' counsel, and actual
innocence claims.

5.

_ The State generally denies each of Applicant’s allegations The State
believes there are controverted issues cof fact material to Applicant’s
incarceration The State therefore requests that this Court enter an order
designating such issues and the manner of their resolution so that it may,
after the issues are resolved, submit a response to assist the Court in making

its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

