AFFIDAVIT REL AS NS 20 PROCEEDINGS CEEDINGS FOR ‘CLIENT JERMAINE S. DOSS, UNDER SFOR, my notarized signature at the signature li By placing . line below, 1, A = under penalty ee for perjury, that these fiacrenbii Wiggin, hereby see st accurate, to my best recollection. I understand that these sete et midered a8 ten in the pending habeas corpus case of Xavier L. Jones v See conse 110-4987. | therefore assert the following, rector, DOC, ease num 1 drafted and filed @ Petition To Declare Void for my then-cl i “et 2009 oat Peston was th Capital Murder prosecution of varieties Sa of structural error because he was allowed to be (and was) convicted of a oe Las the was n0t charged with ‘and which was not 2 lesser-included offense. om wi many late cases cited in that Petition, Fontaine v. Commonwealth, at me aed a ay convicting the defendant ofan offense eee eae , the trial court ‘exceeded its authority.” T presented this statement of law in the Peto, Hem +465, page 13. T ed that, because the murder crime selected by the jury had an Pi the murder crime of the indictment, this rendered the crime of conviction ot ‘lesser included offense, ‘asamatter of law. A main point of contention in the 2009 proceedings was scenario would constitute “structural error.” 1 do not recall anyone contending that, if vomething is “structural ‘error” that the passage of time waived the right to raise it. Another factor I considered in Mf Doss’s situation was his troubling procedural history of the ‘objection made by trial counsel to that allegedly lesser included alternate finding instruction. That objection was made i put mistakenly not included in the transcripts originally prepared When ‘counsel noticed the key missing portion, fhe (James Broccoletti) was ruled to be time- record, When I raised that failure (to include that portion of the transcript) in the 2003 habeas case, Judge Martin held ‘eto be barred from habeas consideration, noting “twas not properly preserved.” (Another ‘troubling aspect was that the key accuser ‘of Mr. Doss, ee a es) ak to shoot the vitim. ‘That led to Actual Innocence proceedings, which did not ‘ultimately result in Judge Martin believing McGee’s recantation.) ; ee eee Court (Record No, 091794) considered my appeal of Judge Martin’s June 2009 devil on the merits, cor nak make any finding that my Sing had beer fivolous confidential communication, {did not allow myself to dered the relevant ‘aw. including Fontaine. 1 fel, in good ‘sonsideration by a court as co whether B #31439)