CHRIS DANIEL

Hannrs CouNrv Dlsrnlcr Clpnr

December 2,2016

JOANNE HEISEY
ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT
OFFICE OF CAPITAL AND FORENSIC WRITS
17OO NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 460
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Article ll.01of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed
copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in
cause number I4l442l-A in the 351st District Court.

I State's Original Answer Filed ,

f, Rrndavit NOVEMBER 28rH, 2016

! Court Order Dated ,

f Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affìdavit.

! Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order ,

f other

Deputy
Criminal Post Trial

Enclosure(s) -

l20l FRANKLTN r P.O. Box 4651 . HousloN, Tpxrs 77210-4651 ¡ (888) 545-5577

P.ccr I or I Rpv:01-02-04
 J5 KT VLo- fl^-â4
¡2/t
'- 1rø ê3-'e¡¡*
'Ae,: ,

,, gh¿L'iix,uk*,5

t"l tçqg¡ - ¡1 '

iti,¡ " ci,r.oþ u¿et*

No.Wf*
STATE OFTEXAS :
AIIIWII
COUNTY OF HARRIS ;
My name is R. P. CORIIELIUS. I am aû attorney licensed to practice law in the State of

Texas since 1972. My bar card number is 04831500. My ofTice address is 2028 Buffalo Terrace,

Houston, Texas, 77019, and my telephone number is (713) 237-9547.

I am also admitted to the ba¡ in good standing in the United States District Court For The

Southern District Of Texas and the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit Cor¡rts Of Appeals, as well

as, the United States Supreme Cout. I am Boa¡d Certified in the field of criminal law by the Texas

Boa¡d of Legal Specialization. I am a former Assistant District Attomey for Hanis County, Texas,

and a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. My Notice Of

Appearance And Motion To Appear Pro Hac Vice has been approved in State or Federal court in the

following states: California" Connecticut, Florida,Illinois, Louisian4 Michigan, New Hampshire,

North Carolina, and Virginia. I have never been found ineffective, denied admission, or disciplined

by any court.

I have been ordered by the Court to provide an afüdavit answering several issues which have

been presented to me as potential grounds for an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.

I did represent JEFF'ERY KEITH PREVOST in the 351ST District Court in the case for

which a post conviction writ of habeas corpus has been fïled and I will provide my answers to the

questions I have been ordered to respond to.

As it relates to question number one (1) [Allegation contained in First Ground for Relie{l:

I have been doing death penalty litigation since 1975, and, in my opinion, no lawyer could

have done a betterjob of developing mitigation from the family, developing rapport with the family,

or presenting a defendants life history through the family than Allen Tanner did in this case. He was

sr{"!sr [g$" that part of the defense and I have to applaud the job he did. Some of the
tffiffiQþ the family actually brought me to tears and I could see the impact it was having on
ir0v ea

,3y N
the jury but, obviously, it wasn't enough to overcome the facts.

I did my best to tie it all together through Gilda Kessner, whom I have used before and know

to be a very effective expert witness in clinical psychology.

Each of the other witnesses we called were strategical and I thought did as good a job as we

could have hoped for in creating an understanding of the client as a TDCJ inmate who was not

perfect but not an actual danger while incarcerated; and a person with actual, diagnosed by TDCJ

personnelo psychological issues that were not within his control. We presented testimony that,

shortly before the alleged murders, he asked for help and they tumed him away. They paroled him

instead. V/e argued all of this and I thought we had great mitigation.

As it relates to question number two (2) [Allegation contained in Fourth Ground for Relie{l:

Upon completely evaluating our chances to prevail on the guilVinnocence stage of the

trial we were convinced that we had no chance of developing reasonable doubt as to guilt or even

some 'oresidual doubt" to be argued at punishment as mitigation and, a"fter much personal

consideration and many conferences together, we felt the best chance we had to save his life was

with acceptance of responsibility through a plea of guilty. We also concluded that Mr. Prçvost

would not be able to help himself on the witness stand and he did not want to testiff and made that

perfectly clear. Also, if he had testified every word of his statement would have come into evidence

whether the Court suppressed it or not.

Next came the consideration of the usefulness of his statement. On the one hand, we felt the

statement was not going to be suppressed no matter how hard we fault it. But on the other hand,
what if the statement was suppressed, we would have no wayto actually show the cooperation Mr.

Prevost gave by confessing. We felt there was¡ some usefulness in allowing the statement into

evidence.

There was also the consideration of attempting to suppress the statement by having the

hearing and developing the record to allow an appellate attorney to raise it on appeal, but the fear

was that, since we were pleading guilty, the State would not actually need his statement and therefore
might not offer it, or, if the State was concerned about the suppression hearing, they may chose not

to use it and then the jury would not see Mr. Prevost's cooperation.

In the end we felt arguing cooperationo confession, and remorse was the best chance to save

the life of Mr. Prevost so we allowed the statement into evidence and made it a part of our case.

4sit relates to question number three (3) [Allegation contained in Seventh Ground for
Reliefl:

Honestl¡ I do not even remember the argument or what may have been going through my

mind at the time it was made. I'm certain we dealt with the State's argument with our own

arguments.

As_it relates to questíon number four (4) [Allegation contained in Seventh Ground for
RelÍefl:

Again, I actually do not remember this argurnent or what I was thinking at the time it was

made, however, I honestly doubt I would want to direct any additional attention to this statement

because I have nevermet any one who would conclude differently. I know that Dr. Florez was not

a mind reader and was not oflered as an expert in psychology and the question to her was probably

inappropriate and probably should have been reserved for argument, but me pointing that out was

not going to help Mr. Prevost, in my opinion.

Part of our defense strategy was that he acted out of anger and not objectively or
dispassionately; 'oa crime of passion." (XXm R.R. at 90). I am quite certain that any juror, üy
where, would conclude that if the evidence showed that after he shot her, and her son, he then

stabbed her2l times that he "was very angry and wanted her dead." I do not believe an objection

was going to stem that tide.

As ít relates to question number five (5) [Allegation contained ín Seventh Ground for
Reliefl:

Once again, I do not actually remember this but I have a lot more confidence in juries hearing

the evidence and properly evaluating the evidence than I do a lawyer3 ability to argue the difference

between the probative effect of an assault versus a potential assault in a double homicide death

penalty case with a lot of other very serious extraneous assaulti

.-"/h
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE me on this the / day of
C c/'b¿. .2016.

ru/Ar* rAnnüt
ilonir t0
Plt^n
,
iloilftl
l2¡0C0tlt
tl Cunnl¡rton Creltrl
l/ûnn\ (o^+,/, FK Jul et. 2020