Lost file leads to new trial

Dallas County: Box with notes on '94 slaying empty; DA blames lack of funding


12:00 AM CDT on Friday, August 24, 2007
By JENNIFER EMILY and KEVIN KRAUSE / The Dallas Morning News


Lost records in a Dallas County murder case mean a man convicted in 1994 of killing a 16-year-old will get a new trial.

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins used news of the lost records to lash out at county commissioners, saying this is an example of what happens when they don't adequately fund the criminal justice system.

"Until we come to the realization we need to fund the criminal justice system in Dallas County, these things will happen," Mr. Watkins said Thursday. "There's going to be something next week and the next week ... It's time we do what we were elected to do and serve the citizens."

He said improving the criminal justice system needs the support of "the folks that hold the purse strings."

What's missing in Michael Andre Reed's case are the notes and tapes of a court reporter, which are needed during the appeals process. The district attorney's office is not responsible for maintaining such tapes, but the county is.

Commissioners took exception to Mr. Watkins' suggestion that they aren't adequately funding the county's criminal justice system.

"You can't talk about a records clerk being the linchpin in the criminal justice system," Commissioner John Wiley Price said.

Money alone cannot improve the county's criminal justice system, he said.

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield said the court has already spent too much money on the DA's office. And he said lack of money isn't to blame for lost files.

"Having competent people will keep files from being lost," Mr. Mayfield said.

The records were kept at a Dallas County records center, and the box that was supposed to hold them is empty, according the district attorney's office.

Mr. Watkins and the commissioners have feuded over money since the district attorney asked for a $4.7 million increase in his budget to pay for 68 new positions.

It appears he will get five.

Commissioners approved a 6.6 percent increase in the property tax rate for the next budget year, but the additional revenue was mostly targeted at improvements in the county's troubled jail system.

Commissioner Maurine Dickey said Mr. Watkins didn't prioritize his requests for new positions.

That left her to guess which positions were most important, she said.

Mr. Price said Mr. Watkins has access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeiture funds.

He said the DA's office added more positions this year than any other, except when entire courts have been added.

In the 1994 case, Michael Andre Reed of Dallas was sentenced to 45 years in prison for killing Carlos Martinez, 16, in a 7-Eleven parking lot in northwest Dallas.

Robert Udashen, the lawyer who represents Mr. Reed, said his client was not able to properly appeal his conviction.

His first attorney did not appeal the case as he should have, and, later, information about the appeals process did not reach Mr. Reed in prison.

No date has been set for the new trial.

Mr. Watkins said some evidence still exists � Mr. Watkins' staff found their own case files late Thursday.

The district attorney's office sent an investigator who was not allowed to search the warehouse, according to a memo prepared by the district attorney's office.

He "was informed that warehouse policy prohibited such searches by non-records personnel. ... Warehouse personnel conducted another search and were apparently able to locate the appropriate box. However ... the box was empty."

The fate of other documents needed remains unclear.

link to article

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnR:
_
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield said the court has already spent too much money on the DA's office.

JAS

I am more curious as to why it took the defendant 13 years to realize he missed his right to a direct appeal. From the court of appeals opinion:

Appellant Michael Andre Reed was indicted for murder in trial cause number F94-39576-HQ. The murder was alleged to have been committed on or about February 12, 1994. On appellant's plea of not guilty, the case was tried before a jury on September 12, 1994. After the jury found appellant guilty, appellant's punishment was assessed at confinement in prison for forty-five (45) years.

Appellant pursued, and ultimately was granted an out-of-time appeal by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on August 30, 2006. The Court ordered appellant to file his notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of September 28, 2006, the date of the issuance of the Court's mandate. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 16, 2006, and on December 12, 2006, the trial court certified appellant's right of appeal.

From the opinion on Reed's writ:

On February 26, 1997, this Court issued an opinion granting Applicant an out-of-time appeal, because his trial counsel failed to file a written notice of appeal on his behalf. No out-of-time appeal was ever filed. In this, his second writ, Applicant again contends that he was denied his right to appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that there is no indication that Applicant was ever notified of this Court's opinion granting him an out-of-time appeal. Nor was counsel ever appointed to assist Applicant in the filing of an out-of-time appeal. We find, therefore, that Applicant is again entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Case No. W94-39576-Q(B) from the 204th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

Maybe this case was the main impetus for the new rule about notice of appellate rights and the requirement that a defendant keep his counsel notified of change of address.

That is pathetic. The lawyer that failed to file the notice of appeal and protect the defendant's constitutional right should be named.

On State's PDR - CCA will decide what "necessary to the appeal's resolution" means in 34.6(f)(3).

Opinion should be coming soon (hopefully) -