g\‘g@bl»oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ //;,2@'/<
__?:O-‘*__LQ@M_¢>,T'_@ F Q ormn l, AWE»;¢/ §
Cow.>:r 0 145er ~ /QGEL ACO§TA
F@/"\? :TE@{)_FLL f,-. di .-.'MA./J 4 °°"RT°FCRNINMAPPEALS
'7?`/% 420 wiZ-BI,SQC{~OB NOV3[l 395
72 pr ,Jo wzo»@¢>g@c¢¢v 63 B_ m»-Ama-¢, , ,e;k__
`DE/<\(a ma r-\&EL A<;o.sw\,
-1”1/£ E,\/z“ /@(<F;\ (3) fo/§z"/'§ 70 TH:’

 

H&>//E 577¢)7/-73 CiqusL/’.
00 /Ym@cH a 0101§ 7’//¢’5 CO¢</e,¢/ QEmA/o®£l)

 

my //07 /1%'@¢:¢)$ Coew§ mm RAc/¢ To

 

'\Allh§ f‘m“rry j`,\/ 7'/!{ O/QDElz I/ 1§7/€¢/?©

 

777/47 THFSE £XI/QITQ LJEQE ,\)a / IZMAQDED

 

F`/zQ/\/L \,qzl/+§ /\Q¢Mm/ /.\TTH ml/ /\z'r'T'.

 

QI;MID__ /a¢A_(~> Le&s£__&e;$@/___/_Hese;;xzm__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LJI-rH -r/¢z; mom/d 7’0 &mp£/ 771 7#€
(_\uu 27
>SJC/ME®.‘ 77/4,\//6 §/0¢,¢

@) .;/<I¢<IT a Z'>'EQQELL, `szTMA/J
§ZBZ€_£HQ;T ,5(¢ l(’ `

F/ '70/.:201
@) -317 [z
. g¢mf' Errfm' 57 `
¢@,) fw c

 

 

_$THTE marr (,i L

 

735 flag/af steam
/~MSE/ /46057/-\.

 

ma nro,<'}`n:

 

Cm¢m \\,/m,L p)E/<_)s§ f-’:/¢.' vwzs /m,~;@_)
r-x.m PQ/»:<z./T ~7'/¢/-:<£_ /3).£)(1'61¢`$ 77/,41/ LJAS
/\/¢)7* €-En,`w~-AEB w:`m vrv\\,/ /z‘07- F'/zoM. dall/15
andrg/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

oF TEXAS
JERRELL GLENN DITTMAN, §
Petitioner §
§ chA NO. wR-81;594-03
v. §
§ TR. cT. No. w10-00566-v£B)
wILLIAM.sTEPHENs, §
Dir. TDcJ-ID §

MOTION TO COMPEL RULING IN FINDINGS
OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW HEARING

PROCEDURAL HISTORY,

ln Applicant's Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Art. 11.07,
Mr. Dittman claimed that his trial attorneys were ineffective for
failing to file a Motion to Suppress the evidence which was taken
illegally and for failure to object during the course of trial to
evidence being admitted in effort to obtain conviction.

On March 4,2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remand-
ed Applicant's State Habeas back to the 292nd Judicial Court of
Dallas County, Texas for further findings of the Facts and Conclu-
sion of Law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals instructed the Dallas
County Judicial Court to respond tb the following questions to de-
termine if Applicant's claims are factual and contain merit.

1). If Applicant's blood sample was drawn solely for

medical purposes or at the request of a peace of-
ficer?

2). If Applicant was placed under arrest for a Chapter
49 offense at the time of the blood draw?

3). lf Applicant gave consent to the blood draw?

4). If there was a search warrant issued?aadd;

5). if é;igéntncircumstances existed?

On September-11,2015, the 292nd Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas held a hearing to determine these factual alle-
gations presented on State Habeas. Applicant's retained attorney dis-
puted the Dallas County District Attorney's claim that it was irs
relevant that the illegal sample was entered into evidence because
they had another sample taken for medical purposes only, that even-
tually would support the State's claim of intoxication.Therefore the
contents in the blood sample was going to be admitted via medical

treatment blood sample that had been taken.

IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S
ILLEGAL BLOOD SAMPLE CLAIM

Applicant argues that the second blood sample came after the
fact. The illegal blood sample is what was used to charge,aindicfjst
and subsequently convicttApplicant. Applicant presents a factual
allegation that the hospital blood sample would have been "fruit of
the poisonous tree" (MMLF'v. State, 137 S.W. 3d 797 (Tex. App.-Waco
2004). Under the "frnit of therpoisonous tree doctrinej" all evidence
derived from exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed
unless the State shows that there was a break in the chain of
events sufficient to refute the inference that the evidence was a

product of the Fourth Amendment.

spy Applicant argues that the State admitted the results of the
medical treatment sample thatfwasn{tkh$ihe original records at the time
of trial. The District Attorney retrived the medical treatment sam&
ple results after the trial and presented them in the record during
the said hearing conducted on September 11)2015 some four and a half
years after the trial in this instant case.

Applicant request this Court to reverse this judgment and
conviction according to Rule 44.2(A) that states that Eif the appel-
lant record in a criminal case reveals Constitutional error that is
subject to harmless error review that the Court of Appeals must re--
verse a judgment of conviction or punishment unless the Court deter-
mines beyond reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to
the conviction or punishment.

Applicant brings before this Honorable Court that it was the
illegal blood draw and not the medical treatment blood draw that was
used to charge, indict, and convict Applicant.Applicant's attorneys
were ineffective in failing to suppress the illegal blood draw and
object during the course of the trial to said evidence being entered

into evidence.

PRAYER

Applicant has presented factual allegations that has taken
place in the instant case along with presenting to this Court the
disregard exercised by the Statei»znot responding to the questions
presented by this Court, Applicant pleas this Court to grant relief
deemed necessary in the name of justice.

Respectfully submitted,

7/¢%5 c;, O>/,ZW_,
j"/ 70 /2051

TE€€LL G~ b:fY///MA/

 

 

   
   

y

 

 

_' ` _'_ -` l _` 1 __" ___ _ "'\. _ , - 1 ._ _ `__r
am "o.f..Arre_'-S'tee_' ~~J C`-'%""“\"\_~’ \><< ’»~Fl" ‘ 'C\»l-;_):'-T(_(,.L) ._”_~;s __
,_ v :.. ,- - r`]; y l v ' _ _` .¢`_4"_ _ l
\' v `},`tv{l (-,~ `1\{{`\1:¢§,"5“(§_..'.:l ( c.".\:~;l_';~`-. ,* `~'\T"_`..`J_-\':\il C\"“,» .
1 ` ' §) "

del / 10 `_/1‘>‘"`1

lursuan_t t`o th§_ pr0v1slons of]'ex. Transp. C`ode An'n_. §724 _0_12, th`e_ undersigned peace officer requlr§s that

rl<l\f ' wm ' 1 Lriz 4‘ 01»)1(,.<[',1,`
- (Nam§ ofPe_r_aon_ Arreated) -

- - _.g"lv_e a specime_n.or_.specimen of blood _u_nd§r the § )vxsions ofT§>_< Transp C_od_e_ Ann Ch. 7_2_4, subch B._

 
  
  

'Act__i_ng__ _in my capaclty as a peace ofhcer l have arrested the abo named person for an offense under~_=v _'
Chapter 49 of _th "~"'»'»)xa_s P_ena`l Co_d§; _su h__person \fz.:as the operator _otor_vehlcle or wate ff“_ nv`olvéd-’ -_ '_j'

` 'f_n an accldentt reasonab_ `jbelleved occurred a _a result fthe offense h`"en | :arrest_ed»t =abov`§'- arned;__~- _- _ _ _

person`, l_ reasonably believed fat another person led died or 'd_ul_d die as; a result of _t_h_e accldent,_ and `t'he'-*-'-" ` "

l :above_- named person has prior _t_o‘ h_e',-i' 1_ssu_anc_e_ of this order refused my request -_to voluntarl|y glve an appropnate - __ l
_-_`,_ spec1men or spec1mens un_d_e__r th authorlty o__f Tex.- Transp C_`_od Ann Ch 724" '_. ' _ _ "

   
  

  

 

   
      

 

        

    

Thls request ls made _pu_r_su

_ ;,§7__24 12_f yo_u_ t__o_ cqucre a spemmen §r_ specimens:._
' the -€§.Ov._e~_n'amed_zarreste§'-s v

___peace off1cer nd as such under'the provls1_` '

   

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

`.-»hlame o.ffP§_rson` Form.zDelivered__fo

   

‘=C-'-"`"-lf/_'l.c;~> §

 

' "»`_.

1 ‘ '

 

 

 

 

 

. ':|D_ate n _
_ _ _ - `»`~.~` `_'. -__,\ . ll
' C`. '>"’ ’ `) l’\h lf',-:;;\\ ':`\\ l \ l l"'\‘~;("(_:l lCO l
' Time and Pla§e ` ’ - ' `:'\)
g`\/\"/\\\,\(,\in `,: ,` "[,`ll l\(-\ - ;': -|=;"[\-?.l

 

Nar`ne~.and Ocou_pation_ of Person Obtainlng_"$peclmen

 

 

._,.... ...»‘n»~*""

 

   

 

DR|_V|NC WMlLE lNT_OXlCRTED_ CASES_

v ;1;/\.' 1 2 RL’D

"/11@,¢ 1501 EV' ~ 11900592
- .'1" " - LC DEPARTMENT

._ ' ' BLo`o_o ANA `Ysls REL llllllllll Wlmllllll l
LJM:\:1 oHoL __ __ _

 

      
 
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

Where Sample Depos1ted
' _`-'--AE l/_l_ N\\l') :.' .

 
 
 
 

 

l ~ Person Deposltmg Sample l 2 ` " ' 7

Name Tl@gb}/ZM/¢€
Agency M[$@l///C 90

For laboratory personnel only

AGENCY 113 012?0_‘/;>€>_ __

 
    

~§L_I- 51 ores/AI/B@ .

__ mae z,'_éf"l?z 1

 

_ '..l;\ `~¥`)V<`:l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AEF|D}\V|

 

 

 

 

 

