EILED/ C.. o'cioc a No. CR-1487-11-D3) DEC 11 dui INTHE LAURA HINOJOSA, CLERK District Courts, Hidalgo County 2 putyta2 206" Judicial District Court of Hidalgo Count Edinburg, Texas GUADALUPE TOVAR CHAVEZ. JR., Applicant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent AMENDED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, HEARING REQUESTED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES the Applicant, GUADALUPE TOVAR CHAVEZ, JR., who submits this amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and shows (AMENDED PORTIONS IN BOLD; EXHIBIT NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED AND HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO COURT AND STATE): POST CONVICTION RELIEF REQUESTEDGUADALUPE TOVAR CHAVEZ, JR., Applicant, requests relief from a final conviction, which guarantees the state access to his DNA as a convicted felon, and the veri prohibits him from serious consideration for employment in the field of education, in which Applicant is a certified teacher. Applicant was indicted by grand jury on one count of evading arrest with a vehicle [Exhibit 1, indictment]. Applicant's completed term of probation is pursuant to a Judgment of Conviction for Evading Arrest with a Vehicle pursuant to Texas Penal Code §§ 38.04(a) and (b)(1) entered on May 7, 2011. [Exhibit 2, Order of Deferred Adjudication and Community Supervision; Exhibit 3, Judgment Nune Pro Tunc] On June 22, 2011, Applicant was sentenced to two (2) years in the State Jail division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, in the interest of justice this sentence was suspended and Applicant was placed on community supervision for a term of two (2) years. On August 9, 2012, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. [Exhibit 4, Opinion from 13" Court of Appeals in 13-11-00619-CR] On March 26, 2013, Mandate issued from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. On April 26, 2013, Applicant was placed on community supervision. [Exhibit 5, Enforeement of Judgment after mandate and Order to Comply with Conditions of Community Supervision] Copies of indictment, Judgment of Convietion by Court and Order of Community Supervision, Memorandum Opinion affirming conviction, Enforcement of Judgment after Mandate are being provided as Applicant is indigent and cannot afford certified copies from District Clerk. Applicant successfully completed the terms of his probation, including the payment of all fees on April 26, 2015. Pursuant to Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Applicant respectfully requests a hearing so that Court may hear evidence which would assist inoverturning convietion for Evading Arrest with a Vehicle and that this trial court enters findings and recommendations that will reverse the convietion and allow further proceedings on this case in this trial court, Additionally, Applicant requests in separately filed motions the recusal of 206" State District Judge Rose Guerra Reyna and Criminal Auxiliary Judge Jaime Garza for legally recognized conflicts. GROUND ONE (AMENDED): — APPLICANT ASSERTS A CLAIM OF INNOCENCE BASED SOLELY ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT ARRESTING OFFICER GUADALUPE GARCIA SUBMITTED FALSE REPORT AND EVADING ARREST CHARGE AGAINST APPLICANT IN RETALIATION FOR APPLICANT RUINING AN UNDERCOVER DRUG SURVEILLANCE BUST CONDUCTED BY PHARR POLICE INVESTIGATOR GILBERTO MOISES VAZALDUA AND K9 OFFICER JOSE TAMEZ, AS REPORTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 TO PHARR PD CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 1. This application is appropriately brought under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.072 An application under Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the proper vehicle for Applicant because he seeks relief from an order or a judgment of conviction ordering community supervision. Tex. Code Crim, Proc. Art. 11.072 § 1. This Application attacks the "legal validity" of the conviction for which community supervision was imposed, Tex. Code Crim, Pros, Art. 11.072 § 2(6(1). A wrt of habeas corpus “issues by operation of law" when the application is filed, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.072 § 4(a); Villanueva v. State, 252 $.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because a writ of habeas corpus filed under Article 11.07 requires the existence of a final conviction and sentence, and a case in which community supervision is imposed does not constitute a final conviction and sentence, Article 11.072 provides the exclusive means by which this district courts may exercise its original habeas jurisdiction in cases involving an individual who is either serving a term of probation orwho has completed a term of probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.072 § 2(b). Applicant has completed community supervision. Finally, Applicant must prove the allegations in this Application by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Cummins, 169 8.W.3d 752, 757-758 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) A claim of actual innocence is cognizable in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Miles, 359 S,W.3d 647 (Tex.Cr.App. 2012), citing Ex parte Elizondo, 947 $.W.2d 202, 205 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996). Two types of actual innocence claims may be raised. Ex parte Miles, citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 US. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L-Ed.2d 808 (1995); and Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Bd.2d 203 (1993). ‘A Herrera-type claim is a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence. Ex parte Miles, citing Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675 (Tex.Cr.App 2002). When an applicant asserts a claim based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence must constitute affirmative evidence of applicant’s innocence, Once such evidence has been provided, the next inquiry is whether applicant can prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of newly discovered evidence. Ex parte Franklin, 72 $.W.3d 671 (Tex.Cr.App. 2002). On September 23, 2010, while Applicant was being booked for evading arrest, Inv. Vazaldua was filing a report against Applicant for interfering with a police investigation, for an incident that occurred on September 20, 2010.In the report, Inv. Vazaldua states that he was conducting surveillance on a house on Azul Lane in Las Milpas, South Pharr, when K9 Officer Jose Tamez reported stopping suspect Omar Martinez, driving a particular vehicle on La Quinta, over police radio. Inv. Vazaldua recognized the vehicle description as one that had left the drug house under surveillance and went to assist Officer Tamez. As fate would have it, Officer Tamez was conducting the stop in front of Applicant’s place of work. Applicant recognized Officer Tamez and listened to the traffic stop of Martinez for using a cell phone while driving. Officer Tamez told Martinez that the ashes in his tray were marijuana ashes and that he should take the officer to his home so that he and his K9 could search for more drugs. Applicant began talking from behind fenced private property from which he was observing the traffic stop and yelled out to the suspect that he had constitutional rights and that Officer Tamez was conducting an illegal search and line of questioning. Applicant told suspect he had the right to remais silent. Applicant asked Officer Tamez if he recognized him from previous felony arrest in CR-4428-09-D. Applicant took out a camera to record the incident and called 911 to report Tamez violating suspect's ei ights, requesting a supervisor be sent to the loc: Iny. Vazaldua appeared at the scene in an undercover vehicle and in plain clothes. Inv. Vazaldua and his partner spoke to Applicant and told him to leave the area because he was interfering with a police investigat In his report, Inv. Vazaldua stated that Officer Tamez told him “be careful with Chavez.” Inv. Vazaldua also wrote that he recognized Applicant from previous arrest. Iny. Vazaldua wrote that Martinez seemed willing to cooperate with them but changed hismind after Chavez interfered with the investigation, and then Martinez left the scene. [Exhibits to filed in a separate amended motion once documents are released by Pharr PD] Inv. Vazaldua had previously taken a false affidavit statement from Commissioner Oscar Elizondo on May 28, 2010 regarding Ap} icant’s arrest at a city meeting. Neither the Applicant or his indigent defense counsel were provided this report filed by Inv. Vazaldua at the exact same time and date of Applicant's detention for evading arrest. Pharr PD documents filed by Assistant Chief Javier Gonzalez indicate Joseph Orendain reviewed internal affairs documents connected to police misconduct reports filed by Applicant. Inv, Vazaldua’s reports were in these files. The State has opposed Applicant’s attempts for a new trial despite having knowledge that Pharr PD retaliated against Applicant for ruining an undercover drug investigation. [Exhibits to filed in a separate amended motion] Officer Garcia testified he knew the Applicant, which is supported by video evidence. Additionally, Officer Garcia testified Pharr Police Department officers were familiar with Applicant by name, face, body, and personal political goals. Officer Garcia was aware that he could craft a narrative for conviction and that investigators would submit his charges for indictment without a thorough review of the evidence available for inspection, Officer Garcia is cross-examined by defense attorney Juan Now, did you know Mr. Chavez prior to your running into him that day? Did I know him personally? No. Did you know of him? ‘Yes. ‘And in what capacity, Officer?A: He was a - - a candidate for, I believe, a commissioner position in Pharr... [Exhibit 6, Portions of CR-1487-11-D Transcript, pg 146, lines 10-17] Q Officer, again, was he known within Pharr Police Department for his political aspirations? A: Yes, I guess, yes. [Exhibit 6, pg 147, lines 3-6] Officer Garcia is questioned about his usual procedures when determining charging individuals with evading arrest when pulled over for a traffic citation. Q (by Mr. Tijerina) Well, Officer, but it’s very different than writing someone a traffic citation as opposed to arresting someone for a State Jail offense. I mean do you typically arrest someone who is trying to get home, who is just, as you mentioned, a block from their own street? Do you arrest them for evading arrest with a vehicle? Typically, in your experience? ‘A: That have been arrested within a block of their house, no, I've never arrested anybody. [Exhibit 6, pg 154, lines 14- 22 Officer Garcia demonstrates his familiarity with Applicant's high profile arrests by the Pharr Police Department prior to Applicant’s detention for evading arrest on September 23, 2010. (by Mr. Tijerina) Officer, also, did you call anyone or did you say “I've got Chavez” during the time of your arrest of Mr. Chavez? Did you call anyone on your cell phone? A: [-+1-~on my patrol radio, I did call that I did have Mr. Chavez on my patrol radio. Q: So people know him enough to where you can refer to Mr. Chavez and they know who you're talking about? A: Possibly, yes. [Exhibit 6, pg 156, lines 11-19] Sufficient new evidence exists to prove that Officer Garcia participated in filing false charges with Inv. Roberto Vasquez, assigned to forward criminal charges to State. Against his better judgment, facts available to him, and conversations with the Applicant during the arrest, Officer Garcia submits false reports to Inv. Vasquez for charges against Applicant.At the same time Officer Garcia is processing Applicant with Inv. Vasquez, the criminal investigations department is filing a report by Vazaldua against Applicant for interfering with a police investigation, Inv. Vasquez would have known of the charges while working on Applicant's evading arrest paperwork. Charges were not pursued against Applicant for interfering with a police investigation. Applicant believes that Inv. Vasquez, Inv. Vazaldua, Officer Tamez, and Officer Garcia made an arrangement to pursue false evading arrest charges in retaliation against Applicant. Additionally, their supervisor, Sgt. David Castillo, head of criminal investigations, also knew about Inv. Vazaldua’s report and failed to disclose said information when questioned as a jury panel member in CR-1487-11-D. Applicant believes that it would be highly unlikely for Officer Garcia to be unaware of Iny. zaldua filing interfering with a police investigation report in the same second floor office where he and Inv. Vasquez are filing evading arrest charges. Officer Garcia testifies below in regards to the element of evading arrest and familiarity with the Applicant: Q (by Mr. Tijerina) Now, did Mr. Chavez at any time indicate that he was trying to get away from you? AL No. Q: —_Atno time did he indicate that he was trying to flee? A: No. Q: Officer, once you saw Mr. Chavez, did - - did you realized it was him before him introducing - - before he introduced himself to you? A: As soon as he exited the vehicle and I observed his face, yes, I-- that’s when I knew who - - who he was. [Exhibit 6, pg 157, lines 2-13] A report filed against Applicant for interfering with a police investigation at the same time and date of his evading arrest charges by Inv. Vazaldua, which containstatements by K9 Officer Tamez, who previously committed aggravated perjury and filed false police reports against Applicant in CR-4428-09-D, which were investigated by former Hidalgo County District Attorney’s investigator Charles Vela, fired for taking the Fifth Amendment in federal court during the Panama Unit trials, is newly discovered evidence. Documentation and video evidence establishing illegal activity by Pharr Police Department officers against Applicant is newly discovered evidence. The term “newly discovered evidence” refers to evidence that was not known to the applicant at the time of trial and could not be known to him even with the exercise of due diligence. Applicant cannot rely upon evidence or facts that were available at the time of his trial, plea, or post-trial motions, such as a motion for new trial. Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006), No reasonable grand juror, trial juror would indict or convict Applicant in light of newly discovered evidence. Nor would a reasonable prosecutor submit a case to a grand jury in which investigating officers were known to fabricate evidence, reports, witnesses, and testimony against an innocent man. The Hidalgo County District Attomney’s office most recently dismissed ‘more than 70 narcoties eases stemming from tainted indictments and arrests by members of the Panama Unit, a rogue investigatory unit headed by Jonathan Trevino, now a federal inmate and son of former Hidalgo County Sheriff Guadalupe Trevino, also a federal inmate, who spearheaded efforts to steal drug loads while working on a county drug taskforce. Applicant believes granting Writ of Habeas Corpus will result in a different outcome in the interest of justice. ‘Testimony and video evidence in CR-1487-11-D featuring Officer Garcia, clearly reveal Officer Garcia knew Applicant by sight and was familiar with his dealings with Pharr PD. He proudly proclaims “Got Lupe Chavez here!” Officer Garcia’s statements are acknowledgementthat he knows Applicant and his history with Pharr PD. Officer Garcia places an unknown phone call on his cell phone during Applicant's arrest that is now subject to review in light of Iny. Vazaldua’s report. Applicant attempted to have Officer Garcia contact Pharr Chief of Police Ruben Villescas, who was in charge of Internal Affairs investigation initiated by Applicant, to clear up the situation due to Applicant's fear of the police after several unlawful arrests and instances of police harassment. This exchange between Applicant and arresting officer was recorded and available as new evidence. At the time of trial, the Court motioned to suppress several minutes of the video for the prosecution, However, in light of newly discovered evidence, the total video of Applicant’s arrest is relevant to “reckless disregard” for truth in sworn affidavits for an arrest ‘warrant submitted by the arresting agency to the State for indictment and prosecution for the charge of evading arrest in a motor vehicle. “Look man, I'm afraid of the police,” Applicant repeats to Officer Garcia, pleading with him to contact the Chief, based on past documented experiences wit Pharr police officers. Applicant asked Officer Garcia to contact a supervisor while being arrested for evading arrest. [Exhibit 7, Dash Cam Video of Applicant Evading Arrest, 3:45 Minute Mark] Inv. Vasquez filed a criminal complaint with the supporting affidavits necessary for an arrest warrant, and all other documentation required to recommend formal charges against Applicant despite his knowledge of filing false police reports and affidavits against Applicant in CR-4428-09-D, a third degree possession of a controlled substance case adjudicated six (6) months prior to arrest in CR-1487-11-D (Ground Two). Inv. Vasquez allowed patrol officers to fabricate probable cause, tamper with witnesses, and suppress evidence of Applicant's innocence in CR-4428-09-D, in which Applicant was found not guilty. Inv. Vasquez was assigned to 10Internal Affairs investigation of police misconduct in CR-4428-09-D and was aware on September 23, 2010 that Applicant was a witness to serious claims involving police misconduct. Inv, Vasquez files evading arrest charges while his colleagues in the same office are filing charges against Applicant three days after he ruined a police undercover drug operation, Officer Garcia was aware of Applicant’s reputation and personal history with the Pharr Police Department. Additionally, Officer Garcia was aware of Applicant's history with the police department through conversations prior, during, and after arrest, much of which was captured on video. Officer Garcia requests evading arrest charges be filed even though Applicant’s actions don’t rise to the expected standard for evading arrest by police training and experience. It is unlikely that Officer Garcia was unaware of Inv. Vazaldua’s report on September 23, 2010. Applicant meets the standard of review for showing harm by the preponderance of evidence. Ex parte Fierro, 934 $.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) In making its determination to grant Applicant’s writ, the court may order affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or a hearing, and may rely on the court’s personal recollection, 11.072 See. 6 (b). GROUND TWO (AMENDED): NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE PHARR POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATOR ROBERTO VASQUEZ FILED FALSE REPORTS WITH HIDALGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WITHELD INVESTIGATOR MOISES GILBERTO VAZALDUA’S TAMPERING WITH A POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2010, TAMPERED WITH STATE WITNESS AGAINST APPLICANT, NOTARIZED KNOWINGLY FALSE WITNESS STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AGAINST APPLICANT IN 2009, FILED FALSE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT USED TO SECURE A WARRANT OF ARREST IN CR-1487-11-D New video evidence procured from the Hidalgo County District Clerk’s Office by the Applicant reveals Inv. Vasquez attempted to frame Applicant with a third-degree narcotics 1felony in CR-4428-09-D, and state jail felony in retaliation for exposing misconduct within the Pharr Police Department and ruining an undercover narcotics operation. Pharr PD video logs detail that on August 26, 2010, Inv. Vasquez reviewed official police videos of arrest of Applicant in CR-4428-09-D, burned a DVD copy, and failed to provide video evidence to Hidalgo County District Attorney's office in supplemental reports he filed with the State. Iny, Vasquez reviewed the video evidence and compared it to official reports filed by Officer Tamez, arresting officer in CR-4428-09-D, and concluded there was no merit to Applicant's police misconduct reports. The video evidence did not match the police report and tes ony used to secure an indictment. New evidence provides basis for nul ication of ink ig instruments in CR-1487-11-D, including Criminal Complaint filed by Inv. Roberto Vasquez on September 23, 2010 [Exhibit 8, Criminal Complaint CR-1487-11-D], filed Pharr PD Arrest Report 2010-00050558 submitted by Officer G. Garcia (#1270) [Exhibit 9, Arrest Report CR-1487-11-D], Officer G. Garcia's Follow- up Statement dated September 23, 2010 [Exhibit 10, Garcia Follow-up Statement], and Warrant for Arrest submitted by Inv. Vasquez. [Exhibit 11, Warrant for Arrest CR-1487-1-D] Applicant raises a constitutional issue for dismissing indicting instruments. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” To determine if probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant, the court is guided by the principles set out in Lagrone v. State, 742 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr. App.1987). Furthermore, under Ex Parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App 2002), Applicant can only bring forth violations of the Federal Constitution, 2Upon closer examination of the totality of the circumstances involving the sworn criminal complaint and alleged probable cause involving evading arrest, Applicant is innocent of the charges forwarded for prosecution. The sworn affidavits and police reports filed in CR-1487-11- D are submitted to the court knowingly, intentionally, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, ‘The documents were submitted as retaliation for ruining an undercover drug operation on September 20, 2010. On April 20, 2015, the Hidalgo County District Clerk’s office released arrest video of Applicant in CR-4428-09-D, which provides evidence that Inv. Vasquez first filed false reports with the State against Applicant in 2009, [Exhibit 12, Dash Cam Video CR-4428-09-D] Video provides evidence that Inv. Vasquez filed false reports against Applicant, tampered with a witness, notarized knowingly false affidavits and witness statements, and filed false police reports in a Pharr Police Department Intemal Affairs investigation. No magistrate would sign a warrant for arrest given that knowledge, nor would a prosecutor seek an indictment based on information from an unreliable source. Applicant was arrested on June 28, 2009 for possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana, CR-4428-09-D in the courts, Inv. Vasquez. was assigned to follow-up on a police misconduct report filed by Applicant on July 21, 2009 against Pharr PD Officer Jose ‘Tamez, the arresting officer, for fabrication of probable cause and illegal search and seizure. Inv. Vasquez submitted a series of supplemental reports and affidavits to the Hidalgo County District Attomey’s office in CR-4428-09-D while working an internal affairs investigation on Officer Tamez. Inv. Vasquez concluded that the arrest was legal; however, recently released video proves Vasquez lied in his official reports to cover up falsehoods in 23Officer Tamez’s arrest of Applicant. Additionally, newly released documentation of Inv. Vasquez work in late August 2009 also contradicts original reports filed on June 28, 2009. Officer Tamez, wrote on June 28, 2009: “Vasquez (Applicant’s passenger) then lost his balance and almost fell. I then stopped the test to prevent him from hurting himself. In my opinion, Vasquez was intoxicated to a degree that he was a danger to himself and others due to his high level of intoxication.” {Exhibit13, Officer Jose Tamez Report] Applicant told Inv. Vasquez during official interview that video evidence in CR-4428-09- D would allow Internal Affairs to bring charges against Officer Tamez for fabricating probable cause, conducting an illegal search, and other crimes. Homer Vasquez does not fall, lose balance, display any signs of intoxication as described, and safely exits Officer Roman’s police vehicle without assistance while handcuffed. [Exhibit 12, 22:00:00 Minute Mark] Inv. Vasquez concludes his report, which was submitted to the District Attomey’s Office, as follows: “Mr. Chavez suggests that there was police misconduct but at this time there is no evidence to support Mr. Chave7’s allegation of police misconduct by Patrol Officer J. Tamez #8605. However, there is evidence and statements that support and justify the arrest of Guadalupe Chavez and Homer Vasquez.” [Exhibit 14, District Attorney Supplemental Report by Inv. Vasquez] Inv. Vasquez did not investigate police misconduct, but instead attempted to bolster the State’s case against Applicant by filing false reports in CR-4428-09-D. Video evidence available to Inv. Vasquez, and reviewed by his superiors, casts doubts on the veracity of Officer Tamez’s criminal complaint used for an arrest warrant, Based on Inv, Vasquez internal affairs investigation, Chief Villescas found no police misconduct against Officer Tamez. [Exhibit 15, City of Pharr Letter to the Office of the Attorney General] 14New evidence surfaced that Inv. Vasquez filed false affidavit by Benjamin Sosa, the tow truck driver for Ben's Wrecker that impounded Applicant's vehicle on June 28, 2009. Inv. Vasquez knowingly allowed Sosa to provide a false affidavit to bolster Pharr PD’s case against Applicant for possession of a controlled substance. In a follow-up investigation report dated August 27, 2009, Inv. Vasquez summarizes his ‘work on a police misconduct report filed by Applicant. The report states that Inv. Vasquez made contact with Sosa on August 25, 2009. Inv. Vasquez, wrote, “Mr. Sosa said that he observed ‘marijuana residue inside Mr. Chavez’s vehicle at the time of impound.” [Exhibit 14] Sosa’s affidavit taken by Inv, Vasquez on August 25, 2009 states the following: “I looked inside the car and I could see that there was marijuana residue inside the car on the floor board. When I say marijuana residue I mean stems and seeds and particles. 1 know what ‘marijuana is because I have been to many scenes involving police when they recover drugs.” [Exhibit 16, Benjamin Sosa Affidavit] Sosa filed a Vehicle Impound-Inventory Record on June 28, 2009 in which he inspected Applicant’s vehicle prior to taking it to Ben’s Wrecker impound lot. Sosa inspected the interior of the vehicle and did not indicate any signs of marijuana use or vehicle smell. Sosa signed the police record. [Exhibit 17, Pharr Police Department Impound Record] Ben’s 24 Hour Towing receipt No. 37347 filed on June 28, 2009 also indicates that Sosa, adamant in his affidavit that he can identify marijuana, did not reveal any details regarding his observing marijuana stems and seeds in the vehicle. [Exhibit 18, Ben’s 24 Hour Towing Receipt] Inv. Vasquez had access to all the evidence, including video of Applicant's arrest. Based on his follow-up, Inv. Vasquez did review the evidence available to him. Official Pharr PD records signed and dated by Sosa on June 28, 2009, contradict statements made to Inv. Vasquez three months later. 45The newly discovered evidence calls into question the veracity of all official reports filed by Pharr PD officers against the Applicant and forwarded to the State for prosecution. Inv. Vasquez, has knowingly submitted false reports and affidavits to the D.A.'s office in CR-1487- 11-D, failing to disclose his knowledge of his own past criminal misdeeds against applicant. Under Franks evidentiary hearing rules, Applicant would need to identify falsehoods contained in the affiant’s application for a warrant affidavit. Inv. Vasquez. had a complete disregard for the truth, disregarding Applicant's attempts to explain to Officer Garcia that he was in a fearful frame of mind and properly signaled the officer with his hands and hazard lights to follow the Applicant to his home. Inv. Vasquez also knew that Applicant was justified to fear Pharr PD officers and high ranking officials because they had filed false charges against Applicant in two previous arrests. Applicant made no recognized effort to evade officer or flee. Additionally, Inv. Vasquez was aware that Applicant did not know the vehicle had an expired license plate and inspection sticker. On August 25, 2009, Inv. Vasquez took an affidavit from Norma Balderas in CR-4428- 09-D, in which Mrs. Balderas was the registered owner of the white Mercury Sable Applicant was driving on day of arrest. [Exhibit 19, Norma Balderas Affidavit] Under law, Mrs. Balderas was responsible for registration and inspection of vehicle, and by law, Applicant could not update any of that information, nor would he be contacted by the State to renew license plate registration. Inv, Vasquez. knowingly disregarded truth in criminal complaint and for arrest warrant by neglecting to establish ownership of vehicle and probable cause to detain Applicant, who was unknowingly driving a vehicle with expired registration. By doing so, Inv. Vasquez disregarded truth in warrant for arrest affidavit. 16Applicant was traveling south when Officer Garcia was driving west on a different road when the officer activated overhead lights. Officer Garcia made a U-tum behind a second vehicle to travel east, and then turned south, Applicant was already a quarter mile down the road and unaware that he was subject to a traffic stop when Officer Gareia came barreling down the road at a high rate of speed, at which point Applicant activated his hazard lights and motioned to officer to follow him. Based on newly discovered evidence that Inv. Vasquez provided false reports to the State to secure an indictment and conviction of Applicant, the Applicant meets the standard of review for showing harm by the preponderance of evidence. Ex parte Fierro, 934 $.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) Based on newly discovered evidence, it should be the ruling of this court to nullify the indicting instrument, or allow a new trial for the Applicant. GROUND THREE: PHARR MUNCIPAL COURT JUDGE RUDY MARTINEZ KNOWINGLY SIGNS FALSE WARRANT FOR ARREST DESPITE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT APPLICANT IS A WITNESS TO POLICE MISCONDUCT, CITY AND POLICE FAILED TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY APPLICANT, WHICH INVOLVED AFFIANT TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN CR- 1487-11-D, INV. ROBERTO VASQUEZ Municipal Court Judge Rudy Martinez signed Warrant for Arrest knowing Applicant was 1a witness to alleged illegal conduct by members of the Pharr Police Department, had reported wrong doings to the police and city commission, and that police department and city had not taken action. This evidence was not available to Applicant during trial or post conviction appeals, On September 15, 2009, Martinez was present as part of an official Pharr commissioner's meeting when Applicant spoke before the city council about police misconduct and the city’s response to the allegations. Video of the meeting clearly reveals that Martinez. was present. 7Official meeting minutes will also indicate Martinez. was present at the September 15, 2009, meeting, Martinez was also present at several meetings between September 2009 and July 2010, as part of his official duties to report activity at the Municipal Court, where Applicant made public allegations of serious police misconduct, violations of the Federal Constitution, failure by the City of Pharr, its elected officials, administration, and the Phart Police Department to investigate said claims, and other relevant knowledge which would invalidate the criminal complaint, affidavit and warrant for arrest of Applicant, Although magistrates review affidavits for warrants using the “four-corners” approach, common sense and the totality of the circumstances also factor into issuing arrest warrants. Based on his personal knowledge regarding the Applicant's previous experiences with the Pharr Police Department, Martinez failed to deny the warrant for arrest, or request the investigators take more time to review the incident as allowed by law while Applicant remained detained. GROUND FOUR (AMENDED): FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DISCOVERY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF APPLICANT'S STATE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: FAILURE OF HIDALGO COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND HIS AGENTS, INCLUDING INV. CHARLES VELA, INV. HOMER VASQUEZ, INV. ROSENDO REYES, INV. DAVID REYES, ASST. D.A. JOSEPH ORENDAIN, AND THE PHARR POLICE DEPARMENT, TO DISCLOSE INV. ROBERTO VASQUEZ FALSIFIED REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST APPLICANT, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE OTHER EXCULPATORY AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT'S INNOCENCE Applicant, through his court appointed indigent defense attorney, Juan Tijerina, filed Motion for Discovery on April 19, 2011. [Exhibit 20, Motion for Discovery and Inspection of Evidence; Cause No, CR-1487-11-D] The trial court granted motion for discovery. Item IX (9) of Motion for Discovery granted by the trial court states, “all statements made by any party or witness to this alleged offense in the possession of or within the knowledge of the District Attomey or any of his agents, including any law enforcement agency, whether 18such statements were written or oral, which might in any manner be material to the innocence of the Defendant or to the punishment, if any, to be set in this case.” [Exhibit 20, Page 014] Hidalgo County District Attorney Inv, Vela reviewed Pharr PD files in CR-4428-09- D. The files were false, including statements that there was no video evidence of Applicant’s previous felony arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Upon Applicant’s acquittal, no charges or investiga investigators. The Hidalgo County District Attorney's knew Pharr PD had committed crimes against Applicant and forwarded evading arrest charges against Applicant to a grand jury. ‘As Applicant worked as his own legal investigator in preparation for trial, he submitted a public information request to Pharr Police Department custodian of records, Lt. William Ryan, seeking Inv. Vasquez’s intemal affairs investigation of Pharr PD Officer Tamez for fabrication of probable cause. Lt. Ryan answered that there were no such documents. [Ex! it 21, Lt William Ryan Response Letter] However, Chief Villescas was in possession of the final report submitted by Inv Vasquez, and had ruled there was no evidence supporting claims made against Officer Tamez. [Exhibit 15] Lt. Ryan had information submitted by Inv. Vasquez that was available for public inspection regarding CR-4428-09-D, which provided evidence officers engaged in suspect behavior in an effort to convict Applicant on possession of a controlled substance. [Exhibit 14] Hidalgo County Assistant District Attorneys William McPherson and Jeffrey Gilbert ‘were aware through oral statements that Inv, Vasquez and Pharr PD had failed to provide them discovery evidence relating to the innocence of Applicant in previous felony They were 19also aware that Inv. Vasquez had submitted false reports for their case. [Exhibit 22, Abridged Transcript CR-4428-09-D; Exhibit 23, Officer Jose Roman Follow-up Report dated 8/28/09] Mr. Tijerina: Your Honor, one of those matters is, I don’t know if the State wants to proceed, but they produced a video, again, of which we have asked for, not only through discovery, but also a subpoena that was failed to comply with, and now the State has a video to present. Mr. McPherson: Judge, this video is pretty much what the officer testified to. It just shows the back seat of the car. There is no video of the scene and what took place out there. When I had requested the video, they told me there were none; and now, they've searched and searched and they did come up with the video. [Exhibit 22, page 137, lines 7-17] Officer Roman is called to the stand to answer questions about the inconsistencies in his revised supplemental report submitted in August 2009 as compared to his original report filed on June 28, 2009. His revised statements are then compared with the video evidence from his patrol car, which prove Officer Tamez’s report and the Internal Affairs investigation of Applicant's citizen complaint contained falsehoods, which would have exonerated Applicant in CR-4428-09- D, and cast doubt on any future affidavits Inv. Vasquez submitted against Applicant for a ‘warrant for arrest, chiefly, the affidavit submitted in CR-1487-11-D. QUESTIONS BY MR. TUJERINA Q: Officer Roman. Officer, now that we've had an opportunity to view the video, in your opinion, did either one of the individuals in your video, namely Mr. Vasquez. and Mr. Chavez, did they appear intoxicated or belligerent in any way to you? A: Noti le the unit, no, Q When they were actually exiting the unit on their own, did they appear to be intoxicated? Did they fall over? Did they stumble? A: No. [Exhibit 22, page 146, lines 4-14] 20More inconsistencies follow, including acknowledgment that the officer was approached by supervisors to submit another report. In light of the falsehoods contained in the second statement submitted to the State, Applicant believes it meets the merits of tampering with a witness, as the revised statements were meant to harm the Applicant. Q BY MR. TIJERINA: Now, in your report, Officer, and we've already kind of gone over it, you submitted a supplemental report that you were asked to complete by your supervisor late August. Again, this arrest took place in June, correct? AD Yes, sir. Q: In your report you state that Mr. Chavez, was belligerent and uncooperative. At any time that we saw in the video, did he appear to be belligerent or uncooperative? A: Inthe video, no, [Exhibit 22, page 146, lines 17-25] The big admission of submitting false police reports against Applicant is revealed in reference as to whether he was under the influence of drugs. Officer Roman wrote in his supplemental report, “as I was booking Mr. Chavez and during the transport to police headquarters I could smell a strong odor of marijuana emitting from his body.” [Exhibit 23] This statement proves to be false, yet submitted as truth by Inv. Vasquez. Q BYMRTIUERINA: As a matter of fact, we've already gone over with the jury that you even check marked that he ‘wasn’t under the influence of drugs, correct? MR. MCPHERSON: Objection. Asked and answered. ‘THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: For drugs - - for drugs, I checked “No” [Exhibit 22, page 148, lines 17-23] 2‘The State, Inv. Vasquez, and Chief Villescas had legitimate concerns about revealing newly discovered evidence and statements because they point to the innocence of the Applicant, organized criminal activity by law enforcement to frame Applicant, and legal arguments for Applicant to challenge affidavit used for warrant of arrest, indictment through a suppression hearing, or outright dismissal of charges by State or trial court. Newly discovered evidence clearly supports Applicant’s request for a new trial and post conviction relief to remove the stain from his law abiding record. Newly discovered evidence also indicates that Pharr’s collective bargaining representatives, who also represent the city’s Civil Service Commission, the legal firm Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bemal, Hyde, and Zech, P.C., were paid to represent Sgt. Mirabelle Garza and Sgt. Santiago Solis in a previous, unsuecessful Writ of Habeas Corpus. Documents suggest high ranking officials paid to have subpoenas issued to internal affairs vestigators quashed to prevent them from test ing regarding Inv. Vasquez work in CR-1487-11-D and CR-4428-09-D [Exhibit 24, Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bernal, Hyde & Zech, PC Invoice; Exhibit 25, Motion to Quash Subpoenas CR-1487-11-D(2)]. The firm can be called to testify because their work product is no longer privileged because it is evidence of a crime, namely obstruction of justice, and can be called to testify as to whom authorized their hiring. [Exhibit 26, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct] The firm was involved in counseling Chief leseas in handling Applicant's misconduct reports against his officers, including polygraph procedures and testing of Officer Tamez, which were inconclusive, in May 2010. Internal memos filed during the investigation reveal that set staff filed false reports, and Chief Villeseas, who is the ultimate authority in handling internal investigations surrounding citizen complaints, accepted the false reports. [Exhibits to filed in a separate motion] 2GROUND FIVE(AMENDED): WIDESPREAD CULTURE OF CONCEALING DISCOVERY EVIDENCE BY HIDALGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PHARR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO OTHER INDICTED CRIMINALS FACING ‘TRIAL IN HIDALGO COUNTY STATE DISTRICT COURTS, COUNTY COURTS-AT- LAW, IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; FAILURE TO PROVIDE COPIES OF MISCONDUCT REPORTS FILED AGAINST PHARR POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS New evidence discovered that Pharr PD has failed to provide Brady material and discovery evidence to other Hidalgo County criminal defendants with cases involving Pharr PD officers who are the subject of citizen complaints of misconduct. The State, as represented in Hidalgo County by the Honorable Ricardo Rodriguez, has failed to provide defendants, like the Applicant, with their constitutionally protected right to a fair trial, which includes disclosure of all evidence which would provide citizens with their constitutionally protected right to a fair trial Most recently, the State failed to provide defendant Erasmo Mata, in CR-2488-14-H, and CR-1477-15-H, access to police misconduct reports filed against Lt. William Ryan, Sgt. Mirabel Garza, and Sgt. Santiago Solis. Mata is a former Pharr police officer alleged to have sexually assaulted a minor, Jane Doe or Norma Guerra, a pseudonym appointed to minors involved in sexual assault cases. [Exhibit 27, Pharr Police Department Letter Regarding Ricardo Rodriguez, Hidalgo County District Attomey, Exhibit 28, Pharr PD Letter Regarding Juan Villescas, Assistant Hidalgo County DA] Police misconduct reports filed against Inv. Vasquez do not seem to have been provided to Eloy Heraclio Alcala, convicted of capital murder in the 332 District Court of Hidalgo County, who recently was granted a new trial by the 13" Court of Appeals based on Inv. Vasquez failing to allow Alcala access to an attorney when he requested one during police interrogation. 23GROUND SIX (AMENDED): TAMPERING WITH WITNESS BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOAQUIN ZAMORA, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WITHHOLDING MATERIAL EVIDENCE EXONERATING APPLICANT IN CR-1487- uD Zamora was aware evidence existed that Inv. Vasquez past behavior against Applicant would ruin State's case. Trial records indicate that Zamora was aware that Applicant feared for his life and had expressed concerns for his safety regarding previous interactions with Pharr PD in State’s video exhibits and motioned to the court to have most of the video suppressed from the jury. Zamora prevented evidence and testimony pointing to Applicant's innocence, including any reference to illegal activity by Inv. Vasquez in previous cases against Applicant, from being heard during trial, including testimony Inv. Vasquez had a history of filing false affidavits and criminal complaints used in CR-1487-11-D for an indictment and warrant of arrest. Q (by Mr. Tijerina) Prior to this incident, have you ever been harassed by Pharr Police Department? (by Applicant) Well - - Mr. Bravo: Objection, Judge, relevance. The Court: Any response? Mr. Tijerina: Judge - - The Court: Would you all approach. Mr. Tijerina: -- I think it goes to my client's - - The Court: Would you all approach. (BENCH CONFERENCE) Mr. Tijerina: Yes, Your Honor? The Court; I just didn’t want a skunk in the jury box. So, your response? 24against Applicant in CR-4428-09-D, with the State's knowledge. Mr. Tijerina: Judge, I just wanted to show the jury my client's frame of mind and intent, the reason why he felt safe to go home. According to my client, he's been harassed in the past by the Pharr Police Department. Court Reporter: Speak up, please. Mr. Tijerina: My client has been harassed before by Pharr Police Department. What he’s done in the past is actually call 911 to request a supervisor but, in this situation, he didn’t have a phone so he felt that it was safest to go home where his mother was there. The Court: What element of the indictment does this address as far as relevancy objection? Mr. Tijerina: The intent part, Judge. The intent. And intent to flee, I think, it - - that speaks to the indictment itself, Mr. (Iris) Bravo: Judge, I believe that his testimony has already addressed the indent [sic] issue and he could develop what he’s already testified to. However, any testimony regarding harassment or prior experiences with these officers is only going to serve to inflame the jury and prejudice the jury. So at this point, we're objecting to relevance and - - and if, ~~ if admitted, it would prejudice the jury. Mr. Zamora: And the probative value is being outweighed by the prejudicial effect of whatever statements that this Defendant may state. [Exhibit 6, pg 168 line 15 to pg 170 line 8] The State objected to any testimony regarding harassment or prior experiences with “these officers,” including Inv. Vasquez, who filed false reports, affidavits, and criminal charges Applicant providing any testimony that would draw attention to the false criminal complaint filed by Inv. Vasquez in CR-1487-11-D, one made in complete disregard for the truth, and used to secure an indictment against Applicant. With the discovery of an additional report filed 25, State objected againstagainst Applicant on September 23, 2010 by Pharr PD Inv. Vazaldua, the past investigations done by Inv. Vela, Inv, Rosendo Reyes, Inv. David, Reyes, Inv. Homer Vasquez, Asst. District Attorney Joseph Orendain, it seems unlikely that Zamora would not have access to information which would exonerate Applicant. The State and its agents failed to provide Applicant with Inv. Vazaldua’s report. The report contains evidence that Officer Tamez and Inv. Vazaldua had a reason to motivate Officer Garcia and Inv. Roberto Vasquez to seek evading arrest charges against Applicant, In light of this evidence, the outcome would be different, and Applicant requests a new hearing and trial to overturn his conviction and final judgment. Zamora’s last legal appointment to CR-1487-11-D came on August 24, 2011, in a motion for a new trial hearing before the 206" District Court. Applicant appeared before the 13" Court of Appeals. By Hidalgo County District Attorney policy, the State was then represented by members of the Appellate Divi ion, From August 2011 to February 7, 2014, Applicant dealt exclusively with appellate attorneys and hand delivered certified copies of pleadings submitted to the 13" Court of Appeals and Criminal Court of Appeals to appellate attorneys. The last officer of the court representing the State was Michael Morris, who was assigned to Writ of Habeas Corpus CR-1487-1 1-D(2) by the trial court, which held jurisdiction over the filing. On April 6, 2014, Applicant served various new witnesses in Writ of Habeas Corpus CR- 1487-11-D@2). Applicant later received an official call from Zamora, stating that he had reviewed the court records and docket, and that there was no Writ of Habeas Corpus hearing scheduled and that Applicant had no authority to subpoena witnesses for an unscheduled hearing in CR-1487-11-D. Zamora, a court official, called Applicant, who was also a witness in Writ of 26Habeas Corpus hearing, to prevent him from appearing in court. At the time, Zamora was not the attomey of record, nor had he filed any court documents in CR-1487-11-D(2). Zamora was contacted by an unknown member or members of Pharr PD, or the City of Pharr administration, involved in this case to quash the subpoenas, persuade Applicant Writ of Habeas Corpus hearing was cancelled, or both. By participating in this case without the consent or knowledge of the attorney of record for the State, Zamora’s actions are criminal, Because police officers or subpoenaed witnesses, or their supervisors, reached out to Zamora, it makes hhim a material witness and participant with Inv. Vasquez to falsely indict, prosecute, and convict the Applicant, Said criminal behavior can only be remedied by granting a new hearing. Additionally, Zamora provided false information regarding a set case in an official capacity. Legal statutes regarding defense against prosecution for court officials performing their assigned duties by law do not protect Zamora because he was not assigned to habeas corpus proceedings, nor appellate proceedings. Based on his numerous years experience as a licensed attorney in Texas, any contact by witnesses in a case for which he is not involved should be directed to the lead attomey handling the case. Witnesses requesting he perform actions on a case for which he is not involved should be brought to the attention of the lead prosecutor, or witnesses should be directed to contact the lead attorney for the State. GROUND SEVEN: APPLICANT ASSERTS TWO OCCURANCES OF INNEFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY INDIGENT DEFENSE ATTORNEY JUAN TIJERINA 1.) FAILURE TO REQUEST FRANK’S EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO CHALLENGE FALSEHOODS CONTAINED IN WARRANT OF ARREST AND AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S ARREST BY INV. ROBERTO VASQUEZ, 2.) FAILURE TO SUBPOENA INV. ROBERTO VASQUEZ, WHOM COUNSEL KNEW TO HAVE FILED FALSE REPORTS IN PREVIOUS FELONY POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, CR-4428-09-D 27Indigent Defense counsel Juan Tijerina failed to provide effective assistance of counsel by failing to request suppression hearing, namely a Frank’s evidentiary hearing, to challenge the affidavits submitted for issuance of an arrest warrant, or subpoena a major witness with evidence that indicting instruments, affidavits, warrant of arrest, and grand jury testimony contained falsehoods. Under Strickland v Washington, Applicant will show that counsel's performance ‘was constitutionally deficient and his competency did not fall within the accepted range of representation in criminal cases, prejudicing Applicant’s defense. Thus, the outeome of the trial would be different had Tijerina met the two-pronged analysis used to determine effective counsel. Lastly, under Ex Parte Chandler, 182 8.W.3d 350, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), challenging falsehoods in the criminal complaint, notarized affidavit, used to secure a warrant of arrest in pre-trial evidentiary or suppression hearings, issuing a subpoena for affiant with evidence of falsehoods contained in the arresting documentation, police reports, indictment, grand jury testimony, or presenting testimonial evidence by affiant detailing past criminal behavior against Applicant are not considered futile acts, but constitutionally bound requirements for effective counsel. Under Franks, in order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the allegations concerning the veracity of the affidavit, the defendant must allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false. Defendant must accompany these allegations with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons, Affidavits or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished. If not, the absence of written support of the allegations must be satisfactorily explained. Lastly, defendant must show that when the portion of the affidavit alleged to be false 28is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support issuance of the warrant, Ramsey v. State, 379 8.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) Paragraph one of criminal complaint sworn and subscribed by Inv, Vasquez to Pharr Municipal Court Judge Martinez, states that Applicant “did then and there intentionally and unlawfully flee from Officer Guadalupe Garcia #1270, a person Guadalupe Chavez Jr. knew to be a police officer, to-wit; a Pharr Police Department Peace Officer attempting to legally arrest or detain the said Guadalupe Chavez Jr.” [Exhibit 8] This statement is a falsehood because Inv. Vasquez has information available to him to draw conclusions about the totality of the incident. Officer Garcia notes in his arrest report, which was viewed by Inv. Vasquez, that “digital video to unit 112 which was uploaded to Pharr Police Department computer server.” [Exhibit 10] The video provides that Applicant did not flee from Officer Garcia and Applicant requested a supervisor be sent or contacted based on bizarre nature of the traffic stop. Inv. Vasquez was aware that Applicant had twice been arrested illegally and that Applicant would have no knowledge or experience of being arrested legally by a Pharr Police Officer. Moreover, affiant knew these statements to be made with a complete disregard for the truth because affiant was a witness to police misconduct and witness in an ongoing investigation involving criminal complaints against several officers, including Inv. Vasquez and his immediate superiors. The criminal complaint made in support of an arrest warrant was filed in retaliation of Applicant's past dealings with members of the Pharr Police Department. The language of unlawfully fleeing is also contradicted by Officer Garcia’s statements that Applicant did not make any attempt to flee or get away. 29Although a magistrate must review an affidavit within the scope of common sense and the four comers approach, Judge Martinez was also aware of the ongoing police harassment of applicant. Judge Martinez knew Applicant and was aware that he was an Internal Affairs witness to crimes committed by members of the Pharr Police Department. Paragraph Four indicates Applicant was “issued citation #117915 for expired inspection sticker and expired state inspection certificate.” [Exhibit 8] This was the basis for the traffic stop initiated by Officer Garcia; however, Applicant was unaware that the registration and inspections stickers were expired. The vehicle was registered to Norma Balderas, the Applicant's former mother-in-law. Inv, Vasquez was aware of the vehicle’s registration but allowed for citation to be issued to Applicant, whom under Texas law, had no authority to update the vehicle’s registration [Exhibit 19] Applicant had no reason to believe he was driving a vehicle with expired tags, and no reason to suspect Officer Garcia had any probable cause to pull him over, as Applicant was not speeding or driving erratically, as per Officer Garcia's testimony. Normally, omissions to a warrant affidavit are not considered for review; however, the omissions in CR-1487-11-D draw serious doubt to the case of evading arrest. Inv, Vasquez’s personal motives for retaliation and revenge against Applicant are relevant. Information that Applicant is a witness to an ongoing police misconduct investigation, afraid of the police, and requires witnesses present during any detention or traffic stop, is required by a magistrate when deciding to issue an arrest warrant. Most importantly, Inv. Vasquez fails to notify magistrate that he has engaged in criminal activity in the past against Applicant. 30Eliminating Inv. Vasquez’s false statements in the affidavit would lead the magistrate to deny the warrant for arrest, and there would be no instrument for indictment in CR-1487-11-D. Applicant also believes that jury would rule differently by hearing testimony from Inv. Vasquez that he knowingly submitted a false affidavit, forwarded evading arrest charges in CR- 1487-11-D, and was also responsible for allowing aggravated perjury and other crimes to be committed by Phar PD officers while under oath against Applicant in a previous trial. GROUND EIGHT (AMENDED): NEWLY DISCOVERED WITNESSES AVAILABLE THAT PHARR POLICE OFFICERS ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT AGAINST APPLICANT IN CR-1487-11-D, NEWLY DISCOVERED POLICE FILES, MEMOS, AND EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN CR-1487-11-D, CR-4428-09-D, CR-10-8485-G AFTER CHANGE OF POLITICAL STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE CITY OF PHARR; CITY OFFICIALS SUPPORTIVE OF ANY EFFORT BY THE STATE TO ASSIST IN REQUESTING NEW TRIAL FOR APPLICANT The City of Pharr underwent a major political revolution in May 2015. Three new officials, including a new mayor, were elected to the city commission. A new city manager and city attorney have been hired by the new administration, This change in government has released witnesses to come forward and testify that the Applicant is innocent of evading arrest without fear of losing their jobs. A third party firm was hired by the City of Pharr to investigate police files, memos, Police misconduct reports, and internal affairs investigations filed in connection with CR- 4428-09-D, CR-1487-11-D, and CR-10-8485-G. Newly discovered evidence indicates high ranking officers covered up misconduct by officers, investigators, and supervisors in cases against Applicant. Records indicate material evidence of Applicant’s arrest in CR-4428-09-D was burned to DVD twice, once on July 24, 2009, and again on August 26, 2009, as Lt. William a1Ryan, Lt. Abram Robles, and Inv. Roberto Vasquez investigated claims by Applicant of misconduct, Lt, Robles wrote a memo to Chief Villeseas on July 24, 2009 investigating police misconduct and stated that there was no video of the arrest. Inv. Roberto Vasquez concluded in a report on August 26, 2009 that Officer Tamez’s police report detailing his arrest of Applicant in CR-4428-09-D was legitimate despite video evidence to the contrary. Chief Villescas met with Hidalgo County rict Attorney Inv. Vela on January 6, 2010 to discuss the case and allegations received by the DA from Applicant on January 5, 2010 that criminal violations were occurring in the investigation. No video was provided to Iny. Vela. Chief Villescas summoned Officer Tamez to a polygraph examination on May 10, 2010 in connection to his testimony in CR-4428-09-D but did not request any on Lt. Robles or Lt. Ryan for their court testimony that there was no video of Applicant's arrest, or their false official reports to him investigating Applicant’s misconduct report filed against Officer Tamez. The i ternal affairs files also indicate that several Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office personnel investigated police misconduct reports and criminal charges filed by Applicant. Because these files are blatantly false and contain evidence of criminal behavior, these court officers are subject to examination on the witness stand, Moreover, the third party investigation provided Applicant with access to Inv. Vazaldua’s report filed on September 23, 2010, the same date of his arrest and detention in CR-1487-11-D, The document provides exculpatory evidence that entitles Applicant to a new trial, [Exhibits to be filed in a separate motion] 32Additionally, city officials will not hire representation to quash subpoenas of witnesses which will exonerate the Applicant. Previously, former City Manager Fred Sandoval, and/or former City Attorney Michael Pruneda, hired the city’s civil service attomeys to quash subpoenas for witnesses called to testify in CR-1487-11-D(2). [Exhibit 24] City administrators have said they will make every effort to help overturn Applicant's conviction, leaving the State in a precarious position should they choose to oppose this Writ of Habeas Corpus. Applicant believes new witnesses will help this court find in the affirmative, and order a new trial. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Applicant believes these new grounds presented for a new Writ of Habeas Corpus hearing will assist in overturning a final conviction and sentence. Applicant prays that new evidence of the indicting instrument and supportive documentation were used by Officer Garcia and Inv. Vasquez to falsely indict Applicant, failure by State to disclose interfering with a police investigation report filed by Inv. Vazaldua on September 23, 2010, evidence and knowledge of falsified documents submitted by Inv. Vasquez, history of Pharr PD to withhold material evidence to criminal defendants in Hidalgo County courts, State prosecutor Joaquin Zamora’s tampering with a witness and collusion with Pharr PD, and newly discovered witnesses willing to come forward to exonerate Applicant, will satisfy this court’s requirement to order a new trial. Applicant also prays that an evidentiary hearing be held such that Applicant may present testimonial evidence supporting this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Lastly, Applicant prays this Court will enter findings and recommendations that will reverse conviction and release Applicant from the ignominy of this injustice. 3334 Respectfully submitted, Zr Guadalupe Chavez, J Attorney pro se 321 Jean Drive Pharr, Texas 78577 (956) 648-0909