Dittman, Jerrell Glenn

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 remanded Applicant's State Habeas back to the 292nd Judicial Court of Dallas County, Texas for further findings of the Facts and Conclusion of Law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals instructed the Dallas County Judicial Court to respond tb the following questions to determine 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 officer? 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 allegations presented on State Habeas. Applicant's retained attorney disputed 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 eventually 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 appellant 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 determines 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|