GRIEVANCE 2 against Scott Sullivan

13/12/2011 08:54

GRIEVANCE 2    (please also see Grievance 1  at  

126 E NUEVA, SUITE 200
TEXAS 78204

RE- Grievance against James Scott Sullivan

Dear State Bar of Texas

Your Texas Disciplinary rules of Professional conduct and Texas rules of Disciplinary procedure clearly states that a lawyer has an obligation to represent the legal interest of their client. More specifically Point 1, under "Comment: scope of Representation "states that the "…Client has  ultimate authority to determine the objectives to be served by legal representation within the limits imposed bylaw, the lawyers professional obligations and the agreed scope of representation". However, this is not what happened in my case.  The district court (399th, Bexar county San Antonio) had appointed James Scott Sullivan to "represent" me during my state habeas corpus appeal concerning my Death sentence. Over the course of that year he represented me I sent him numerous letters in which I begged him to investigate issues of my concern my "interest" and to include these issues in my state habeas corpus brief, yet I was ignored. And though I'm a "comprehending and responsible adult" (point 3 under Rule 1.03 of the Texas Disciplinary rules…)  Mr Sullivan never articulated why all my concerns were so absurd that they deserved to go unaddressed.  However one particular issue (claim 15 of the enclosure) Mr Sullivan agreed to address to my trial court during our evidentiary hearing, yet by the time the evidentiary hearing was brought to a close, he had not done what he agreed to earlier.   Ultimately Mr Sullivan utterly neglected a legal matter entrusted to him (rule 1.01 competent and Diligent representation (B)(1)) under sub section "C in Rule 1.01 "Neglect, signifies inattentiveness involving a conscious disregard for the responsibilities awed to the client.  Because of Mr Sullivans "neglect" I very well may be killed by the state of Texas, as all the claims I urged, begged him to preserve for future review, by filing them in my state habeas corpus, have been procedurally barred by the federal court, (the appellate court that follows the state habeas corpus stage) as a result of Mr Sullivans "malfeasance" (wrongdoing or misconduct).  My court appointed Federal attorney John Carroll (my present attorney) tried to plea to the Federal court to hear these neglected claims. We argued to the Federal court, since when I realized Mr Sullivan wasn't going to represent my legal interest I immediately wrote the appointing court (399th district court, San Antonio Tx) after the state Habeas corpus evidentiary hearing diligently seeking t have my legal interest which Mr Sullivan ignored, preserved/entertained, representations wrong doing  To the contrary the Federal court Judge not only refused to hold a hearing to determine if there was indeed "cause" (reasons beyond my control) for my neglected legal concerns absense in the state habeas corpus brief Mr Sullivan filed in my name, but he also procedurally barred these claims.

For the record, when I attempted to notify the district court Judge, Juanita Vasquez Gardner (399th) in writing, of Mr Sullivans dereliction of duty, they also ignored me, and I know the court received the certified mailing because the package was signed for by an agent of the court.    Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of what my Federal Attorney filed in my Federal writ concerning claims Mr Sullivan neglected. I would like to draw your attention to pages 123-126 there of.

PAGES 123-141

In closing because of Mr Sullivans neglect lack of diligent representation and Malfeasance I have been placed in a compromising position, one of deadly proportions, At the state Habeas appellate stage Im not guaranteed "effective assistance of counsel" but merely "representation" which partially means I can only communicate with the court through my "representation". However, what is the client to do when his interest are not being represented? Reach out to the court himself?  I am caught in a legal catch 22.

My Federal attorney  John Carroll and I are asking the 5th Circuit court where my appeal is pending, to grant us a COA (which gives me permission to appeal what the Federal court procedurally barred) in hopes that they will recognize Scott Sullivan tied my hands and silenced me, denying me my due-process rights.

Please accept this as a righteous grievance.

Reginald Blanton

7800 IH 10 WEST
TEXAS 78230

Bar NO. 19483350