Go Home Go to List

Trever J. Nehls, Fort Bend County Constable Precinct 4 and his twin brother Troy E. Nehls, Fort Bend County Sheriff.

Do we have an honest person or a criminal as the Fort Bend County Constable Precinct 4? You be the Judge.

An alleged assault case involving the son of a Harris County sergeant and a Sugar Land Police sergeant was thrown out of court by a Precinct 4 judge nearly 10 months later.

The assault was investigated by both Fort Bend County Sheriff’s office case number 12-13787 and the Texas Rangers. Once the investigation concluded an assault charge was filed on July 18, 2012 in Fort Bend Precinct 4. But the assault case is small in comparison with an alleged criminal conspiracy to file false, misleading and deceptive official documents and conspire to dismiss the assault case as it will be shown below.

The assault charge instrument filled by Donald McCall was filed first in Fort Bend County Justice of the Peace Precinct 4 with Judge Jim Richards (See Exhibit 1 p. 12 in the Exhibit document link below). Then the case was transferred to Fort Bend County Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 with Judge Joel C. Clouser, Sr.

On August 15, 2012 a new charge instrument was filled by Fort Bend County Assistant DA Atwood R. McAndrew III (aka Woody McAndrew) and filed as shown in Exhibit 1 p. 13. This charge instrument was changed by McAndrew taking out any specific elements for an assault charge. McAndrew stated Trever cause physical contact, but did not establish how the physical contact was made to comply with Texas case law.

On August 27, 2012, after changing venue and filling the defective charge instrument of August 15, 2012, Assistant District Attorney Woodie McAndrew faxed the original correct charge instrument to Precinct 2 (as shown in Exhibit 1 p. 14 and 15) just scratching the 4 and writing 2 for the new precinct. This reintroduced the original correct charge instrument Donald McCall had filled at the beginning.

On February 20, 2013, the case was set trial in Judge Clouser’s court. Prior to starting the trial the charge was read aloud in court by McAndrew, the Judge then asked Trever Nehls for his plea in which time he plead not guilty. The Judge asked Trever if he had a copy of the charge and Trever said no. McAndrew stated he thought he had mailed one in August 2012. McAndrew offered his copy to Trever at which time Trever accepted it. Then DJ was called as a witness and was asked three questions, his name, address and place of employment. That is when Trever Nehls, a non-attorney, stood and objected and asked to approach the bench with McAndrew. At this time Trever raised two case law (See Exhibit 1 p. 2) which were yellow highlighted clearly indicating he knew in advance of the problems with the defective charge assistant DA McAndrew had filed. It appears that the new charge instrument was intentionally written defective to override the original charge instrument. It is also apparent that Trever and McAndrew knew the new charge instrument he drafted was defective and there is high probable cause that they orchestrated the production of the new defective charge and the case law to dismiss this case.

Assistant DA McAndrew and Trever Nehls seem to know what was going on and the Assistant DA did not object to anything even when the request for dismissal was untimely and the defective charge instrument would have been waived if not because McAndrew waived the Trever Nehls untimely request for dismissal by consenting to everything and not objecting to the dismissal.

Even when the original charge instrument was reintroduced on August 27, 2012, probably because McAndrew knew the one from August 15, 2012 was defective, McAndrew never argued this charge instrument overrides the defective charge instrument of August 15, 2012, thus making it more apparent at one point McAndrew and Trever Nehls were in collusion both knowing at one point that the August 15, 2012 charge was defective and ignoring the correct charge was re-introduced on August 27, 2012 by fax.

More suspicious yet is the fact that the correct instrument charge filed on July 18, 2012 has a received stamp (not very clear but it is there), the correct instrument charge filed by fax on August 27, 2012 has also a received stamp by Judge Clauser’s court, but the defective August 15, 2012 defective charge does not have any received stamp. Further noting that Trever Nehls said he did not have that defective charge during the trial and McAndrew never mentioned he re-introduced the correct charge on August 27, 2012, making it apparent that McAndrew and Trever Nehls were in collusion and at one point conspired to dismiss the case using the “middle”defective charge.

During an interview Fort Bend County DA John Healey said that the trial should have continued, since Nehls did not object to the charge until the trial began (See attached article from the Fort Bend Herald in the Exhibits acrobat document below).

It is apparent that:

1)       Assistant DA McAndrew has over 20 years of experience and has always performed at a competent level, therefore it appears that this was an intentional act to file the new defective charge and dismiss this case.

2)       That McAndrew and Trever Nehls conspired to change the valid charge with the defective charge instrument knowingly to be defective in advance to have this case dismissed. And that probably Fort Bend County DA John Healey pressured McAndrew to dismiss the case by any means, so they used the defective charge instrument. They knew that the Texas Rangers had a video tape from the store Trever J. Nehls allegedly assaulted Don McCall's son, so they knew it was very probable he was going to be found guilty if they went through the criminal trial.

3)       It is apparent that McAndrew and Trever Nehls knew in advance the charge instrument to be defective because Trever had prepared and highlighted two cases of law that he presented to the Judge and McAndrew never argued he reintroduced the correct charge on August 27, 2012. Note that the two cases of law had to be acquired through companies like Lexus Nexis or West Law, so records should exist as to who conducted this reference research as well. If McAndrew did the research it would show collusion and impropriety between the DA’s office and Trever Nehls.

4)       It is also apparent that they called the first witness with the mere intention of attaching double jeopardy so this case cannot be re-filed as an assault charge.

5)       It is apparent that McAndrew did not object at all to the untimely request for dismissal and did not object that the correct charge instrument was reintroduced on August 27, 2012 because he conspired with Trever Nehls to dismiss the assault case.

Trever J. Nehls Alleged Assault Exhibits.pdf