You are on page 1of 8
Cause to. 2000-cr~3482 Reginald Blanton 393398/12 aD-53. Folunsty onde ‘3672 Fm 350 South, Uvingeton, 77381 Sin ancnios Sx 308 fe eiavencn /OWr VIEL Doar State Bar 1 don't know vary auch Lav, and the law Ido knov cues frou the loowe research I id in case lav. I'm not familiar with any Cimlines and the intricacies Of fing appeals on a death penalty conviction. I do how that, yenarally. Sf Taon't include iaeuee in my tabeas Corpue, they're lost forever, or the Durden cf proof 1 must mot to validate a claim bucows nearly ingcaoitle to meet ae'an apyeal proceeds through the appellant. process: understand my Lawyer to be what “we"—the reprasented—refer to aa a "zouth Diace'? one that commintoates 4th the D-A'a and Joye for Me; one, that takes By arene of concern and articulates it with the aypropriate Lege authority. Bowever, 1 also understand pov anny lawyers tend to operate; atlecst the ‘court appointed ones. They'll take your case and you'll be lucky to ever hear fron then. So somtimes a gulf ovells betveen a detendant/appellant, ‘end the Iavyer ao tar as Communication ia concerned fron the onset Because of ay luck of mmovledye of lav, it's hard to dist inguten wnat ay fights are and vhat"s veong with my ease according to lav. thus, making it GLeticalt to just come forth vith what I want/newd Eiled in wy cage. This ‘coupled vith a lovyer that doesn't aak questions to find anything that might bbe an ianue of concern that's not in the records as the case le nece, unless he does an investigation outaide the record, he'll, ultimately, be left to secely vork vith whatever the trial lawyers had towek with. ‘mnie in vhece tne peoblea arises. TE the appellant lawyer, as it io a0 oy ‘cane, {a raising an ineffective sasistence of counsel claim en trial lawyers bbened upon Uoele tailure to conduct a curplete and thorough investigation ‘as gutlined in the Wiggins case, wouldn't thie mean that Me. Sullivan (ny ‘tate Mabens attorney, aad attorney in question! ha to conduct that “trocough complete” investigation or an investigation to some degrve to validate the elaia? (on a personal level, 1 fool an attinity toverds tr. Scott Sullivan. And oWtaide how bbe questioned the people at cur evidentiary hearing on my ctate habeas corpusy T'feol inadequate about his Fepresaitation of me overall on appeals. But ‘as you Will see, this 1s not somcthing I's Just feeling as opposed to somthing Live felt T'm not familiar with the appropriate forum to notify the courts of an inadequacy n'ay Fepresentation. Such valusble information is not readily available. ~*~ Deepite personally feeling intixidated by this adversarial process, and discouraged to fight, euch « proficient process, a jalinwuse lawyer told sa to overcame tny complex and sake copies of all my letters tg,uy lawyer epekking on all he things I feal ace vrong ay case, and ifféidn"t do tive things he's ebligated to doy 1 vill have my proof that T diligently sought. to have theoe ‘Root encertained by the lowe courte so they can be feviewes! by the higher ‘courts. 1 vas also given the folloving: Pro Se Litigants pleadings are to be construed Liberally fang held to. lose stringent standard than foraal plosd- inge dratted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read Plescinge to state valid clais of wlilch litigant could Prevail, it should do 20 deapite failure to cite proper Tojal authority, contusion of legal theories, poor fanidiaricy with pleacing requiromats. (see. Goo Ye'mmctoopall, 494 OrS- 364, 70 tals S51, 102 set Toor Wntnes V: Karnai, 404 U.S. 519, 30 Ubd22 652, 92 ct 394) ‘me more case law I reed, the more I vas able to articulate iagwes vith my case. ‘started to Sovelope sone Rind oF {daa aa wat to look for as the case law helped me to renaber some areas of ay trial since X don't have ny trial records Ro go overs han I began to write wy lawyers letters. Please note the enclossd packet wickad "Jotteca." Muaaral-I aro ay letters fo'fes Sulliveny and namecai-ii are Me- Sullivan's letters (respons) Eo me. 5h the upper-left-nand-wormer of act lettec, you'll ting Ut tney're numbered he lettera in "I" are noabered aa I oent thon to my lavyer, and "iI" are ‘imbered as I received his. Latter Samaria ee the beyinning of February of 2003, 1 mailed Wr. Sullivan a pick of Letters iAgBy 2) Ut was my arse actaope at couimsicaticn vith he LetbtS AE were initially veitten to my direct appellant Lawyer in this pack of letters, Tee ne. Sullivan knov I didn't wiuh to anger nim because I knew ay 1i6e aa in hie handa. I raised areas Of concern vith the aniaaion of the SKS “site auothge vas convicted of possacsiiy,—and the D.A's anguliny before the 3 ‘the puniahment phase of my Ecial that 1 vas actually in possession Of it, with specific eophusis on letter I:8 ad wectlows of letter 122 chat Seale vith arean that node investigation. In lotta: Ar 1 explained hov my trial lawyers expressed during the punishoent. hase cf my trial that It vas their (iret bine geaing ny T-Y.c. (Incarceration) Elles, and neoded time to exaaine those files. they examined those flee dicing the pundshaent phase of ay trial, it could not Ml poseibly De ‘held that thay haa enough time to thoroughly go throuh those files as, to eepary an edngiace Getense againet the sejeriey Of the States evidence, hich Ses my incarceration record they used Guriig the punishment. phase 40 prove Chae T vas a future threat not only to the free vorld society. but. origon foclety ac voll this had a profound effect on my conviction: (soe Lotter testified for 1.¥.C. during ay trial. These issues vero brought to my trial lnsyers attention. in letter 1:5, 1 also placed emphasis on gation. Purtheceore, T asked We. Sullivan to obtain otatenonts Fron SSG Grcsiisec, inciodlng chose thet vere tnece vith Fronk Trujillo and {Then he alloyed that T told him everything about. ey case, who would show hat Frank Teuyillo (tne jail house andtch) not only Lied, but that I'm not the type of person to discuss wy case with anyone. ALL of which, if examined by the jury, could have completely damaged Prank Trujillo's credibility. 1 ‘also aizacted Pe- Sullivan to the 2e@ paragraph on the second gage of Letter By when vas e reference to Hobert's ape Latoya's testimony of touir statements being coeroed” and the need for a Jackoon V- Denno hearing oh aumlesebllity. Trevurjes the need £9 fashion a claim on wit vas the wrongly admitted SKS [and the D.A'a arsimante thecetcon- fr- Sullivan sms wads sare Of all those Yeouee approx. Inyear end S-ontie troa the tino 1 ange the court avare of these iaoves. Me had more chan enoujh tine to investigate those issues. etter #2, nich was mailed to Nr+ Sullivan Septesber 15, 2003, vas the agplying Of the Helv Aaicus Curiae of the Auatican Gar asociation in suppoct of petitioner Kevin Riggins V. Thome R: Corcoran on weit of certiorari! to the Bis. court of Apooais & its definition of Teaplets & thucown investigation” to my case. (alao see Habeas Corpus Writ) Therein, I ceiterated ay trial Tavyers" faiiure to condoce 2 tnrough © complete livestigation into my 7. (Gneareeration) record to adequately prepare e defense for the punietwent stage of fy trial. 1 ain) feuryed hia to obtain "seatamants Leon collstaral ‘ereone," auch as those officers outlined en pg 34, letuer #2, "eo verity, Sorrooctate, explain and expand upun” the infsesaticn eotainad on my conduct Ce ‘jury could have felt that it wa aitiyating oc supporting of ay trial lawyer's Gefense- Proving my trial lawyer's theory that I wasn'c a threat to prison Society. Thove issues vere brought to Pr: Sullivans attention about 1-yoor P'aemoncha before T notified the courte of these issues after Me- Sullivan ‘refused to investigate &/or file these peopnmed caine. te. sullivan mas visited me at the Polunsky Unit about 3-4 tines. ho tira Visit yao to lot mo know that ne was copresenting me on wy Habeas Corpus atate)- the socond visit vas to let me know of ay up-couins peycholovical yy with mr. Goraing and gous Of the issues he was caising an my State Corpus. By about the Sed visit, wo vare discussing the contents of Cel letCars Previously mentioned. we comletely disagreed on strategy. 1 asked te Sullivan Lf he secured an investigator, and he said "no." By this visit, it wes the last veok of August’ in 2003. hy Habeas Corpan vas ave that coniiny October 27th; about Z-months avay. hen T tried to spesk on some of tne Leaves in Totter #i:A Sy ae well as letkar #2, Me SuLsavan would try to aiscourage: ime from aaking him tO pecoue these iaoves by asking me any questions in ‘2 harrying tanner, demanding rationale for the isoues 2 was propoeity—lepal Fationale T wasn't reedy to provide since 1 didn't know the legal authority Off-hand Attacking me Very mich Lilt how DiA's attack points ef @¢ror at appellant presente in a brief/vrit. After this and fe. Sullivan's comenting Gn Ma "son 2oyoars of experience,” it made we a@ccnd guess, ith ay 1aymane ‘hderstanding of the lav, voether I had valid claims. So, X would leave the init to only co a little more research until 1 felt 1 was right, in my position. ‘pen furcher contemplation 1 realized that Re- Sullivan had easteally ny propesea caine Of error outlines in uy Letters. T ais recognizes that he Gian'e and couldn't conduct the investigation necessary to prove that