-
LOUitl OF CUMINAl J\7\>EI\LS t\us·-yr_l,L JEX/\S ·1~,} /l-,a.-a. t?.\::e_ ~ Duv LD n s-~.~t. v c\+ ;o h ... T~i I'IW K Vw-- lldJ CCJb bIe.ss Yo Lt • yDu V F cl n ly clr. t ends. 1 J 1 1-\Q.LJOII p., \) LE ~ 1\ 1\ !L1.1\ -r. LT E: ll(Ll l ;s 1\t\(S 0 1\l S.l h LHL: ~ . 3U~ht 3Jq1l4 ~U\'JtU.I\L DlJIIZJ:CT LDurti. . r:lathM d~ A1l_1l\LJrL LOl!Jf#tbcrJso HUtiHf:S IJruiT. IcC 2. BoX LJi/60 G.A-r~ s V.1lLEJ T0.As th\q} ' TV PISTRICI' CLERK Direct Dial Line: ARTHUR LOWE #(j69750 HUGHES UNIT RT. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TX 76597 . Memo_J'llDdo`` to ``po``+ed= 04114/1<1__ --- ·- -·- ' Re: Cause No(s} 065915601010 & 06591.5401010. Dear MR. LOWE, f . f;g] · Your motionlrequest NUNC P~ ~C was filed with _the Di:driet Clerk and oa 04/21/14 the Court: : . 0 0 ~+M~ 181 Gnmtedyoarm_req_ o Tookno....:,; Tookadlo• o -rm,;,..,,_.... o' oo... ~ Other: PLEASE FIND A'ITAC. A) COPY OF THE CORRECTED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE." ALSO, OUlt RECORDS BAVE . BEEN CORRECTED TO· REFLECT. 2~· DEGREE FELONY - 1 AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE. - ·--·····----·-- -- . - , ·~-~- 'Jpx·;46``. ·~ -~oumJN. .......,.. . . . . . . c"' .. : .t~ .........··.a··-~·1:- ; : --- .-.: ' ' I. ' . .,.~'\ >. ~iCORDfRS MfMORANDUM: This insfrdment is of poor qualifY and:i1ot satisfactory for phO!LJgraphic redlrdatlon; and/or alteraltons were ~ED @>'I :.:NutJl:. ft1o ``~ present at the time of filming. · /1 'f :.:tr 6 ~ __'3_-;_q_--fll tJ THE STATE OP TEXAS NO·--------+----+~J~----------- :nr _ ___,_ Dl:STRl:CT vs. COURT PF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Change o~ Venue From: ____ /1/_r!A"-".______ I ..:nJDGICBir.r OR juay VBRDXC-1: OF PURXSIDIBII!I! Fl:XBD BY COURT OR JURY Attorney for statea Attorney ~or De~endanta . J t 1 AJ /.1 f\ " f f [ 1 Waivcct cou-1 Offenses Date Offense J1Jt1 -~-·f. Degreea · COmm.i.tteda / ' f "' ..... Ch~rging . . l:nstr~enta :rndictment/~aCa~•aa P1eaa Jv.ey Verd.l.ct: Foreman: /Ja.v 1'd /ll D + P1ea to Enhancement F.i.nd.i.nga on Paragraph (a) a Enhancement a A~firmative P'.l.ndinga: DEADLY WEAPON: Yea INo :N/A ropriata aelec1km N/A ,.l -available xOLl!!NCEa I Yea . cw- INo app : HATE CRIMEa Yea JNo PunJ.ahment A&aeaaed by • ~:a:~ .. 0Cl()l9et- ~ (qt{: AJ(~ TQta1 Amount of , R&atitution/Reparation/Raward: Reat.i.tut.i.on/Reward Name a Ad~e-a_s_:____________,~---,~r---`` statement of Amount of Payment (a) reqg &ci/Terma of Amount a+!---------+----4::::t,.....?H:--- Vl .....0 whicb - - waivcct aud allcaa Dcfaidud 10 birve beea . . cmhancemealofpu.nm-as. lbe ~..ked De~WIIIICb all ~ lnlo or flabe •ad ~ ............... Jlbowaabave. Aad,.,...... Defa...s.nt ia Jlbowa .hove 10 have elected 10 bavo lbej..q _..ll'"nieh-, juq w~ ca1lcd back IIIlo the box ....sihcard cvidcoce nolative 10 abe qUC8IioD of pualehmcal ....S bavlua been dul7 chaqcd b7 !he~ lbc7 .,cin:4 to cctJDidu ...,... aud after baviQa ~ lbc7 ntu.-.1 IIIlo Caud lho verdict abowD under puaillunem above; and wbetl Dcfcadaal. ~ Jlbowa 8bavo to ba- 10 brio puaWuaeal fixed b7 lhe Capat. iD due form of law flulher ovid-• wu beard by lhe Court relalive 10 lhe quesliOD of pvniduneQ1 and abe Caul\ fixed , of !he DofoDdaat u abowD ~-- · rr IS. T1IEREF01U!. CONSmEREJl AND ORD ..,. ...... c-.t_ ba tho . - o f tho Dcr....lao:. dud !he ..WJuda- be ....S dao ......,,. bCI'Cb7 ia alllbi,.. appnwed and -..a..... aud tb81 the Dcfeadlml atijudJ-, auiJt7 of !he om:....- fo~ aloove .. fOUIId b71he -.diet oflbejul)', and Aid Defcadanlbe pualmed ill acccmlaDce wilh lhe Juey verdicl M lho •a ~. u ahownabave aud that b.. Defeadaa& ia - c d 10 a 1enn of impri110nlllllnl or f'mcl or bolb, aa - forlh abo-, aud thallhe Aid Def'cadalll be b~ lhe SberiffiO lhe Directar of !he Texas Depadmellt of Crimiaal JIUiice, Institutioa Diviaion. or Olher penoo.lepDy IIU1horit.ed 10 rec~vo IIICb c:oo.vicla or lhe pjuullhmellt •-aed bereiD. ~ lhe aiel Def'clldaa&8ball bo CODfiDcd for lbe abovo named 1enn iD accordmce wilh lhe praviaioDa of .... aovemiJta mch puaiot...)-.. aud exeeutiollma7 & - j.. _ _.,._ Fudhor. lbe COUft Gada tho PneentcDco Iavcatiplioa. if 110 ordered, waa doao acconllua tO !he applicable p df Art. 41.12, Sco. 9. Code ofiCrimiDall'l'occduro. c.- AND 1be aid DcfenolaDt waa re~ 10 jail UDiil uidforifl' faa obey !he clireclloa ollbia:Ju.t.-m. 1 tifCoRDER'& MEMORANDUM I 1 I. lllla ln81Nment 18 of poor qualilJ P1_~a:~&f!=J~IB· J~ry:_-:"' co``(``~;~l!aaeaai Puzr-1.ahmenJ 3 - ._., . . . ,.::...,..... < -· ...."-.··· :·.atthet!~-~!``i~g, - .... o.- ..... ,, cRM-4 · R10-07-93 I ·! - I, Pag~ 1 •:.:£._ :-"s I ;::u.o-.. c"?-93 .- *"- :L'O BE COMPLETED ONLY WHEN· OF SENTENCB SUSPENDED.. AND DEFENDANT GRANTED •. ~ROBAT%0111. - , j 'o.a lhi• .... - - - - - - - day or -------+---------J' l!J:....__ ___,__ impoaidOD ordlia -IICO ia RUpoaded aad cfefendaal Ul plaeed oa Mulll'robalioa tor ...,:.----~--+--run~ Ilia abkfin$ b7 &ad'- vtorau.w d11o rei'DIII IUid coodidODII.orpmballon, "PPruvecl b7 1hla coun aad -..hcd aa a pad.'or lhia jl&damn& i B :t I. COSTS I ----------------------~--------~----------------~---------------=``----1I Payment Typaa _ _ _ (S, X, o, M or La)· (H~a Xf •x• or •o• sea attached order) I Ja:Ll. Tl.ma: _ B/D/H/Y ,..-...ccst!_ ~/N _•_ Y-Yas N-No (ja:1.1/f:Lna/coat concurrent) I Tl.ma Aaaeaaed Texaa Depa.rt:&'Dant of Cr.,... . ca, %nat:Ltut:Lona1 D:Lv. • - - - - - D/H/Y I Ja:Ll. crad:Lta B/D/H/Y · ·Sentence Date: - I Ja:Ll. aa a Term of Probat:Loln I B/DlH/Y Add:Lt:Lona1 :Ja :Lt: _ _ _ _ _ _H/D/H/Y 1 Payabl.e on or Before a ·' 1 Reward SPill a COCa Hour& of ce t~ be Served by P~rfo:rm:Lng oommun:Lty se-rv~:L-c_a___ Dafendant to Sa:rva Sentence by on:Lc: Honi.tor:Lng? (Y :or N) 1 NOTE TO SBERXFPa ______~-=~--------``--~-~---~-=``````--~-=~--------``=-``~ Tranacri.pt at• · Pagea •••••• I l" C:r:Lma ·,stoppers F a a . . . . . . . . . 2 I 00 Se:rv:Lng C&pi.aaa _f!_J__/Summ~naa • yll' 8 Jury P e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '3 a01 IJO summon:Lng 0 ~ Wi.tneaa/Mi.l.a~a....... • ·• 0 b u-1 CJPP. ~ ••••••• • . . . . . . . . . . . 201 00 Jury P e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • `` LEOSBP................... 1 I 50 Tak:Lnga Bonds ••••••• , . . . . . . . . . . • FJ CVCP. ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~.... c:5l6li 00 comm:Ltmant •••••••••••••••• ~......... • c=l DCLCP.................... I Re1eaaa ••••••••••••••••••• ~......... • -:a-1 JCTP.;;................... 1 I 001 Attachment ••••••••••••••••.~......... • I V:Ldao • P e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I l. Arrest W/0 Warrant/Cap:Laa •.~......... • I I I DWX ~al.uat:Lon F e e . . . . . . . I I -------------- RECAPXTvLATXOH ------r----~--------1 Fi.ne Amount ••••••••••••••• ,. •••••••• "1" I · I · I Rewar~ Repayment......... Secur:Lty : r a e . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 15 I I 001- M:Lacel.l.anaoua coats ••••••• ,. ••••••••• I • I I Recorda Preaervat:Lon Pee. 10 I ee~ Judi.ci.al. Fund Faa ••••••••• :. •••••••••• I . I I ACCA.J................... 1 spac:Lal. E x p e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • I • · I I P:Lnanc:La1 Reapona:Lbi.l.i.ty. I Tl:" 1.&1 Fee. ~ •••••.• • • • • • • • • • ·.•. : • • • • • • • • • I .'·; I I PTR Fa.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Di.atr~ct Attorney Pee ••••• •.•••••••••• . • I • ~I Attorney P e e . . . . . . . . . . • • • 1 Cl.erlc a F a a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • I , 4 . I Braat~ Al.coho1 Teeti.ng... 1 1 1 Sher:Lf~•e Faaa (Tota1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·• I ~ I RahabJ:.l.~tati.on :&"und . . . . . . 1 1 1 Hi.ademeanor c o a t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • I · 'J. MAP Traffi.c Costa ••••••••• ;. •••••••••• I , I I I I Amount Probated/Wai.ved ••• TOTAL AMOUNT OWED •••••••• Tf:JI..t 1~1 ~SVI : ~. S:Lgned and entered th:La the eRed~y o~J IU`` /O-~fl19~ ~ Noti.ca of Appea1a Probat:Lon Expi.reea -~-:-----+1 19_;_ Mandata Recai.vad: Jv~.e A rr/I"'IIU..'e/. -. ,~ C.l)ul'-7 o.f A flt~q I~· 19 'f 13' After Mandata Raca:Lvad, sentence to Bag:Ln Date i.s• CJ,..;.,J,Jl,.. :J..'B', fqq'$ ~J...,•.JJ.. f (Cbccok ONLY lf Applicable) l J Dorc..u. 10 "placed ia 111o ~S.A..I..P.r 62.03 (c)-!J Raviacd Slalldcaf.Adicle 42.12. 9> p 8, C.C P. ;:;t~ 2. ;;;! q y~ C..l"'t! ;('- Reca:Lvad on day 0.~ . .,. .·...;..------4----.....i..-' A.D., 19____ •at -------- o•cl.oclc_____M. Sheri.ff, H~, Texas By a -----------::,---"""----;.'--.-, Depu y L r ~g_qq &:Ita-- Entare~(Jf{ilM ~qq I I I : t I I : I I .-.. :".- ·.... . J I Vari.fi.ed · I f I ------------'--' I I I I Dafandant•e R~ght Thumbp:ri.nt CRM-.Qo • ·Rl,0-07-93 ._:...1 ..... ~·:.. > .... ·~:~ "f· ~-~ ;.;J!t;~ iJ ~· 177th THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. .GJ· ARTHUR DAVl:D LOWE SPN 00227697 DATE PREP~-:4-22-93 BY:4-22-93 DA NO:.J.li 5771 .. OVERDALE. DOB BM/12~9-60 AGENCY:WEST U 0/R N0:1930127 HOUSTON. TEXAS 77033 NCIC CODE·: 1007-10 ARREST DATE: _ _ __ FELONY CHARGE: RELATED cAsES: AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING 2 OTHER FELONIES THIS DEF CAUSE N0:659156 D.A. LOG NO. 23368 , . ~) ,m HAIUUS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT N0:~3~3~9~TH=------ CIJS NO. ~ . BAIL $ . /p...,. 0' · jVQ. 5)rn;: . Vot:...:..Pag~AXQy 9 PRIOR CAU~E NO: _________ Ill '!HB DMB U1D BY AUDOIUft OJ' THB STATB O'H TBDSI -.The duly -~orqaJJi.z.ed ~rand Jury of. Harris . County,· Texas,: . presents in the District Court of Harris Coiulty~ ''l'exas:"·"tliat iit·ilarris County,. Texas,.__ A!l'!lma ·. DAVJ:D LOWB, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about DRCB. 4, · 1993, did then and there unlawfull;x·, intent~on~lly and knowingly abduct TANYA ·.MILLER LODEN, hereafter styled ttie Compla~nant, without her consent, with intent to prevent her liberation by secreting and holding the complainant in a place where the complainant was not likely to be found and with intent to -facilitate the commissdon of a felony, namely aggravated robbery. Before the commission of the offense alleged a,bove (hereafter styled the primary offense) , on January 23, 1979, in .cause· No. 283709, in the 228th District co~ of Harris County, Texas, the Defendant was convicted of the felony of indecency with a c:;:hild. · . . . Before the commission of the. primary offense, and after the conviction· in Ca"Qse No. 283709· was final, the Defendant committed the felony of burglary of a building and was _convicted on July 28, 1988, in cause No. 507052, in the ', 183rd District court of Harris county, Texas. AGAINST 'l'HB PBACB UD DIGNITY 0"1 THB STATE. 177th Foteman .~J.a~ FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY ' ,..... .. .. ....:.. ·.. : ......... . ~:;,::.5~:.: .:.. .~ ' ) ' . . ... l~ ·;~'. -~ - ........ I~.. ;~ .:;.. -~; .... · ) :~· ..... ::.~ ``r ~.! ~1`` i'wt'~. __ ~ ':.. .. ~- ,:....' -··- ' • ;;:.,,.,',];;>" ......-::?J .:." .... >Ti'O .''t ',\ v:• ,J't< • 'V R£CORDER:S MEMORAN~M: . I This ins:r~ment is of poor quahty . -; and rwi. 'satisfactory for p~raJJh,c rectkdation; and/ or alterations w~e PI esen~ :Jt th~.;.• r.Cme of fit mini!. b5"'1 /)6 THE: STATE OF TEXAS NO·--~--------~--------+- ~rN- ! 'J]q+'t ,-:_~ · - - - - - - - D:ISTIUCT vs. ( ; :coURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Lowe.- of ~enue From: /4. JPI cotlR!I!· OR JtiRY Judge Presiding: cq ,/{c.. Lo "-r Jud~nt: Oc..-lo 6cy .; { qqJ --~------````~--``------------r---~--~--------``~ Attorney for State: Offense: /J 9i r 4 v4l~ el Degree: fD Charging c. Instrument: Indictment/~ferma~!en c. Jury Verd.i.ct.• Plea to Enhancement ·C Parag~aph(s): No+ ,c._ Affi.rmati.ve l!'.i.nd.i.ngs: (em; roprioluclccliaD-NIA- aataYOilablooraatjiq>p•li91>1cl~ DEADLY WEAPON: Yes (No IN/A FAMILY VIOLENCE: Yes IN HATE CJUHE: =:a:~e: ()et()@er d-g flltl Time Credited:``~ tJ(fo concurrent Unless Otherwise Specified=--``~--------- Res~itution/Reward t / I statement of Amount of Payment(s) required/Terms Tbil calde beiDa caUed CDr lrial, 1110 Sla1o appca:ed b;r die oboYD aaa.d IIIIDmCJ', aad 1110 defi:adlua appca:ed Ia p . - opeo caun, riae · - llllmcd COUIIICI Car Dcraadaat abo beiDa praoils, or wbcno a dcfcadom Ia aati:Cp1"C-..I b:r 1110 ~ lalllwiual:r. iuldlipud;r, aad whaataril;r waived 1110 riabl to repraeawioa by COUIIICI u iDdicaled lbcwe, aad 1be l&id Dcfimdml baW!a duJ:r ~ Uld il oppcoriq to lbe Caulllbat Dcrcadaal ...,. mcntaJI:r compctcaload baW!aplaadedu obawDoboYDto lbe clwJIUi8 illllramelll, ba1h ~read)> !Dr trW aadlbaeuponajury,loo'Wil, lbe abDYC IIIIIDOd forcmaa Uld clcvca olhon wu duly ICiccUd, imjomoled, aad - 1110 jury baW!a ita.~ imllrumelll n:ad aad lbe Def"eadud'o plea thereiO oad 11rt1aa beard lbe cvideoce aabmiUed oad ...;.;.. -dilly charJed b:r IIJo Caurt, • ia eiJaati or tbo propor olilcer" to comlder1bo verdict, aad · aftcrwud . . - brouaJu lalo Caull b;r lbe prapcr olliccr, tbo Dcf"eadud oad dcf"eadud'a CCIUIIIIII, • , bciaJt p - , oad n:lllnled lalo opea COIIlt tbo ~ ICl fonh oboYD, wbicb .... r=cived b:r ..... Caull oad Ia lurro ...... ea1cred apoalbe llliriWa. or lbe .. ..._;. . - . tlet-o~ c!J% rl3 ! ..... Dcf"eadud ""iDa pmriaudy elcctcd to havo p1lllilb=d uoeued b:r tbo oboYD obowll- or p1lllbhmeDI. oad wbea ......... ...,., lbe ``Com.iao·at,._paropph(s), which wore aat walved aad allepo DcCcadaalto bow bcca CCIIIYic:led .~ :r ~r 11111 reloD;r or olli:ueo lbr lbe pwpooe or eabaocemcasorp1lllishmcal, lho_Coun" ull:ed DeCcodoat i f - sbown oboYD to have olecled to bow IIJo jwy - ollcpllau:......,- or faloo oad puaialuDolit, llldl.iuri wu calkd bact: lalo box oad L .. ......,. obove. ADd wbcra Dcf"eadudia hj.anJ cviclcuco nlalivo to lbe quuaiou of p1llli.sbmcat and bavirla bcca clul:r eboiJed b;r IIJo Coutt; !hey retired to CCIIIIidu ouch quoaioa aad after dclibaarcd dlc:r n:lllmed ialo Court lbe vcrd-.ct ahawa 111111cr pu..w.-m ahove; aad "- Defeadul Ia obowllabDYC lo batio eloclod lo have pouiabmoat bod "' ~ io clue 6mra law ``arch. ovldcm:a,.. bead h:r or the Caul\ relative to the quoaioa or plllliJhmolll oad lbo Coat\ 6xal pwUJbmoal lbo Dc&adaat sbown aJ!ove. or rr IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AND ORDERED b:r lbe Coud, io tba or tba ·o.'&....t...t,lbat tba aid jwtprrclll be oad ...... - io benby io all lbinp appnm:d aDd coafirmed, oad 1hal tba Del"cllllml Ia aof.JIIdpd .,ntty oftba o ICl abDYC ao fauad b;r IIJo ~ or lbe jwy, uuloaW &.J Dcfoadlal be punished In IJ:COIIIa=e wilh 1b& J1117 "Velllkt or lbe Coull'a1iadirJa, u llbOWD oboYD dllllbj. Dcfcadlml Ia - . s to a tarm or Unprlaorlmoal or !iDol or bo1b. u 101 fonh abovo, aad 1hal tba llid Dcfcadlml bo dcliverc4 b;r tba SJicrur to tba or~ Tau Deparlmad or ClimiDd Jllllice, lilllilulioa o-.vmDA, or Olbor pencmlcpllr au1bari2led to noccive ouch CGII'Iicla lbr the puailhmcaliiiCIICCI ~ aad il.o llid -Defaulaat lflaiJ be COilliocd for the abDYC 42.12,1 (: ' t named lanD io aecanlaac:o wilb IIJo proviaialll or law aOYarllbli ouch p~aad u=lllioa r+:r iamo u· aeccuu:r. l'urlbct, the caont fiadlthe Prc-=:o STATE'S Wlff~ lnvealipt"&aa, if 10 anlan:d, .... dono ac:c:onlioj: lo tba opplieoblc proviaUml or All. Sec., Cadc orCrimioal ~ ... EXHIBIT , • . t . AND the uid Dcfmdaal wu mmadcd to jaihmdlllid Sbcrilf cau olloy the di • oflbil ~ I ff :I I . · ,c~c;;.,-<. ;".Jti\2-~: I , Court/J``- A~sess.i.ng :``·:/~;``:~w``~i ·::Pl:"ea CRM-4 Before Jury - Rl0-07-93-- ...... • .. ' P,unish!:lant .. · ; · · Paae 1 - ·-.} , . '"'' " *~ ·.,_.ROBATZON. ~0 BZ OOHPLBTZD ONLY ~ XMPO. SXT~Ot OF 'sZNTZNcz susPENDED AND DEPENDANT" GRANTED " j ·aa diD .... - - - - - - - clay or -----~---t--...;..---.-J· 19-________ impo8idoD or diD -acola ...opoadcd aDd cfefelllful ia piKed oa AdUB Probalioa fill' _,_-----==1--+-.-,j,. pend'"uqr bla abidJJW b7 lUid!.- viola~ die ranns aad colldidmuo_of' pn>badon, appmved b71hia c - aDd......,.....- a pan'oflhisj...,_.. I B :t It o:p COSTS -------------------------~----------+----~-----------------~--------------------````-----~I Payment Typea _____ (S, x, D; M or La) Xf •x• or •o• see attached order) 1 Jai.l. TUnal _ B/D/M/Y,_.~- Y-Yea N-No (ja1.1/f1.ne/coat concurrent) I Time Aaaeaaed Texas Dapart~en~ of cr;m . ce,Xns~i.~u~i.onal. Di.v.a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D/M/Y 1 Jai.l. credi.t:r B/D/H/Y · ~Sentence Date:r I Ja1.1 aa a Term of Probati.olu B/DfM/Y Addi.~i.ona1 :Ja _l i.t=---= H/D/H/Y I Payabl.e on or Before• ; 1 R&warci SPIU coc-;-" I HOurs of santa ca to be Served by Performi.ng eommuni.ty Servi.ca Defendant to serve Sentence by B1act oni.c; Moni.torJ.ng7 (Y .or N) a NOTE TO S~XPPa _______~--~--------~-``--~----````-~-------``----------~-```` · Pagaa •••••• 1. , I 2 I OOl Tranacri.pt ata Servi.ng Capi.aaa 0 I /Summonaa summoni.ng__Q_Lwi.tnaaa/M1.1e~ge ••••••• , • • S"'l 2J.;"I tJ b Cri.me,Stoppera Fee........ a "B Jury F e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CJPP • . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aDI IJD I 20 I 00 I Jury Fee •••••••••••••••••• ~......... • `` LEOSBF................... 1 I SOl Taki.nga Bonds ••••••• ~......... • t=l CVCF.~-·················· ~ 001 Commi.tment •••••••••••••••• ~......... s=l DCLCP.................... I I Re1eaae ••••••••••••••• , . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ~-1 JCTF..................... 1 I 001 Attachment •••••••••••••••• ~.......... I VJ.deo•:rae................ I 1 Arrest W/0 warrant/Capi.aa.~ •••••••••• I I DWX ~al.uatJ.on :rea....... 1 1 -------------- RBCAPXTULATXON ------ ---~---~--1 Rewar~ Repayment......... I I Fi.ne Amount ••••••••••••••• ~......... I · · I securJ.ty P e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OOI- Mi.ace11aneoua COata ••••••• ~-········l· I I Recorda PraaervatJ.on Pee. I 10 eel Jud1.c1.a1 FUnd P'ee •••.•••••• "- •••••••••• I I ACCA • ..! ••••••••••••••••••• I I Speci.a1 Zxpenae ••••••••••••••••••••• ·• I I I FJ.nanci.a1 Raaponsi.bi.l.i.ty. 1 I ; Tri.al. Fee . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . ~-· . . • . . . . . . _,. 1 I PTa F~a.................. 1 Di.atr~ct Attorney Pee ••••• ~ •••••••••• I i n1! ~I Attorney Pea ••••••••••••• I Cl.erk • a· Fee ••••••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • Shi.edri.ff•s Fee• t(Tota1) •••• ~ ••••••••• M s emeanor cos s ••••••••••••••••••• _. .. I i 4~ I ~I i" 1 1 Breat.. A1coho1 TaetJ.ng. • • 1 RehabJ.l.J.tati.on JI'Und •••••• 1 :II Amount Probated/WaJ.vecl ••• 1f:J~ 1 1 1 !.s-vl MAP Traffi.c Coats ••••••••• ~......... • 1 I TOTAL .'AMOUNT OWED........ ``~ sJ.gued and entered tbJ.a the Noti.ce or Appea1a / {) - c:Rod yo~ Ol_ 1119.2.3: (}fi~,:.' ~.D.; _ ~- . _ Probati-on Bxp~res: --~--~-----------r' 19__ ; -- , XNG B Mandata ReceJ.ved: Jv~..e ~<;( 19ft;' Arr,·~-.#..~ -. JL"' LDII,...., o.( A,,````. I~· A~ter Mandate Recai.vad, sentence to Beqi.n Date i.ac Oc..-I4J~.er ``' /qq3 ~,u,·j( (Cbcck ONLY It Applkablo) ( ) DeCcadaal to bo placed ill die ~S.A.I.P.!' 62..QJ (c)-9 RavUcd Statu1ca1Adiclo 4%.12. 7) • p a. C.C P. iD : ;;t"J 2.. ;;!q y $ • c..~-e ;(,· IIJo Toxu ~of Criuiiaal , _ . , , lluilllulioaaJ Div1aioa penuaDl to Art. f Rece~ved on ·day of ,..'~---------t----+-' A.D., 19____ at -------- o•cl.ock____H. Sheri.ff, H~,·-~exas Bye ----------:::--~-----+'--....-..., Dapu y l{``qq&:ta--- : BnterecOtJ O.~M ~qq : I I , I •. : :".... -·... I I Var.i.f~ed · f I --------~----~-1 I I De~endant•s R~gh~ Thumbprint '.: ·- / Ca~0``~:::;:,::50l0 Lowk• t .J;HUR DAVID j a/kla_ In the 339TH District Court r C~unty Criminal Court at Law No._ Ha ris Qounty, Texas . ENTRY OF 'DGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC Today, the Court held a heari~g on J 0 the State's written motiqn for judgment nunc pro tunc. . ; . . 181 the Defendanes "tten motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 0 its own motion. Satisfied from its own recoil tion and I or from the evidence presented the Court grants the motion and ORDERS en of the following judgment in the minutes of the ·Court in the above styled and numbe ed c~e to make the following correction: ; :1- OFFENSE FOR WHICH DEFEN ANT CONVICTED SHOULD READ: AGORA VATED KlDNAPPING RElEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE . 100714 2- DEGREE OF OFFENSE SHOUL READ: t~ 0 DEGREE FELONY. 181 If applicable, the '··judgment nunc pro tunc supersedes the erroneous judgment previously entered and anaihed. · I CAS No. '065915601010 INCIDENT 0./TRN: 9000184029-AOOl TJIE STATE OF TExAs IN THE 339TH DISTRICT +I v. § COURT § LOWE,. ~THUR DAVID § HARRIS COUNTY, TExAS § STATE ID No.: TX02465170 § JuDGMENT o(F CoNVICTION BY JURY jDate Judgment Judge Presiding: HoN. CAPRICE COSPER !Entered: 10/2211993 'Attorney for Attorney for State: DANRIZW ]Defendant: JIM RUST Offense for which Defendant ConvicBJd: AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VIC'fiM IN A SAFE PLACE (100714) Chanting Instrument :statute for Offen~: . INDICTMENT iN/A ;Qa te of Offe!!§e; 3/411993 ' Degiee of Qffense; :Plea to Offense: 2ND DEGREE FELONY NOT GUILTY Verdict of Jurv; Findine:s on Dead])! WeagQn; GUILTY N/A Plea to I st. Enhancement Plea td 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: NOT TRUE iParagtaph: NOT TRUE Findings on 151 Enhancement fFindin'gs on 2nd Paragraph: TRUE. [Enhan~mentJHabitual Paragraph: TRUE Puni§h~ ``ssed bv; Date Sentence Imoo~d: Da~ S~mten~ to Commence: JURY 10/28/1993 10/28/1993 Punishment and Place of Confinement: LIFE INSTITUTIO NALtDIVISION, TDCJ THIS SENTENCE SHJ ILL R~N CONCURRENTLY. D SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT SUSPENDED, DIFFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR N/A • Fine: Court Costs: Restit&tion: Restitution Pavable to: $NIA $ 134.50 $ Nl 0 VICTIM (see below) 0 AGENCY/AGENT (see below) to tbie Defendant. TEX. CoDE CRIM. PROC. chapter _62• ...... 0 t<'l to ~ &!Time to ~Credited: 00 to - ~ ora 0 ~ AU pertinent informatioD. names and asseSsments indicat above "'e incorporated mto the laapage ol the judgment below by reference. Z ~ This cause was called for trial in Harris County, Texai The State appeared by her District Attorney. Counsel/ Waiver of CourtselId. See alsoTEX.PENAL CODE. ANN. 20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014);Wi11iams v. State, 851 s.w. 2d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). However, the trial Court's actions Ord~r~d ~CORRECTION' of Relator's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' [TO] [2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDGANPPING-RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE]~ WhiCh if proved by the preponderance of the evidence, is a Second Degree Felony Offense. See TEX.PENAL CODE 3 . . ~ . f'~.:.''?~>-·;~1·~-". ~1 '·•"'i' ·~·;].: -<')~; ry·``!~:.;:~·.·: ... ~·y:- ·.:.;.;.?~::``:}~?;!{~:·? ·. ANN. §20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014);Se'e also TEX.PENAL CODE ANN~ §12.33{a)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014)[Second Degree punish~ men t level. .. "no less than 2-year ... nor more tha 20-years] I d. IV To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstr- ate (1) 'that no other remedy at law. exists, and (2) 'that under the law and facts relevant to the case, the act sought to beId. (quoting State ex rei Hill v. Court of Criminal Appeals Fifth Dist., 34 s.w. 3d 924, 927 (tex. Cri~. App. 2001)). It must also be "clear and indisputable" that the relator has an absolute right to relief sought.
Id. Aministratiar.act isone that according to law, must be performed with certainity with certainity it does not require the execise of judgment of judicial discretion.
Id. v Relator,filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pur- suant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; §4(a,)(l)(Vernon 2014). Request for the trial Court to pronounce the Sentence Re- lator is expected to have to serve orally pronounce in Relatot's presence. Article 42.03,§l(a)(vernon). The Stahe's Assistant Dis- 4 ~ ! .• • 1' .• ~· `` :' . . ' j .._, trict Attorney, filed •state's Proposed Findings of Facts and Conlusions of Law and Orders' the trial Court [A]dopted the 'State's Answer and 'Prposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions Of law and Orders'. As its {OJwn. There effectively improperly [DISMISSED], relator's Application as a subsequesnt Ap~lication for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court of Criminal Appeals, final Disposition On [October 8, 2014]--[DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER]. Being ... NOTED ... that the initial Abplication fot:Writ of habeas Corpus, this Court [DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER}, On [December 18, 2013]. The trial Court [GRANTED], Relator's [MOTION], On [Aptil 21, 2014]. The trial Court's acti6rts in Granting R~lator's 'MOTION' was Four (4)-Months after the Final Disposition of Re- lator's First Application for Writ Of habeas Corpus. [DENIED WRITOUT WRITTEN ORDER], On [Decembercl8, 2013]. See 659156~A~- 659156~8~-~hd WR-25,679-17. VI Relator, filed a [MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC]. Requested the trial Court to Pronounce the sentence in Relator's presence. Pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.o art. 42.03, §l(a.}(Vernon Supp. 2014). Howevert Relator, attempted to collect information concerning the disposition of the 'MOTIONNUNC PRO TUNC'. By sending a missive to the Hatt±s County• District Clerk's.Office. The Disttict Clerk's Office., cited Relator in accordance with TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.028(a}(1}(2). refused to provide Relator with any infOrmation 5 concerning the status of the 'MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC'. But because the:Harris county citation. In refusing to provided Relator with any information. Being mindful Relator is incarcerated at the Hughes Unit. (TDCJ), Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Insti- utional Division. Under the circumstances relator has taken every available means to Him~_To.g~t thertrial Court to Pronounce the [R]e-sentence .. irr Relator's presence. pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03,. §I(a)(Yernon 2014). Iri the instant case, the trial Court is refusing to Prbnounce Relator's Sentence in Re- lator's Presence. In violation of Relator~s Due Process of Law. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.04 (Vernon 1989)~ and in Vio- lation pf Statutory provisions. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.42.- 03, §I(a)(Yerno~ supp. 2014)[Sentence shall be Pronounce in the defendant's presence];See also Marshall v. State, 864 s.w. 2d 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);Mi11 v. State, 848 s.w. 2d 878 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist] 1993);Abron v. State,997 S.W.2d 281(Tex. App.- Da11as 1998)("Defendant is entitled to have the sentence, includ- ing the assessment of any fine pronounced in his presence"):Sanc- hez v. State, 228 s.w. 3d 85 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2006)("Sentence in a felony case MUST be pronounced in the defendant's presence"). Thus, it being settled in Iaw ... "there is no fixed or fixible £orm to use for a sentence, the one mandatory, being that the.sentence be pro- n~unced in the defendant's presence)"'See Garb v. State, 234 s.w. 2d 869 (tex. Crim. App. 1936). In Small Y.State,38 S.W. 789, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)(stat- 6 ing that an improper pronouncement of sentence is akin to n6 pro- nouncement of sentence at all; See also Papakostas v. State, 145 s.w~ 3d 723~ 726-27 (Tex. App``corpus Christi 2004, no pet). In reaching this conclusion, In:'McClinton V. State,_ this Honor- able Court of Criminal Appeals, held that ... "It is well establish- ed that a trial Court's Oral Pronouncement of Sentence in open Court is the Sentence imposed. The wriitten judgment or a docket entty is merely the written ~ec}aration and embodiment of the Oral prbnouncement. Ex patte Madding, 70 s.w. 3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002);Coffey v. State, 979 s.w. 2d 326, 328). As the Court of Criminal Appeals, recently, explain~d:: "The rationale for that rule is that the imposition of sentence is the crucial mom~nt when all parties are physiea11y presnet at sentencing hearing and able to hear and respondGtO the imposition of sentence. Once he leaves the court-room, the defendant begins serving the sentence. Ex parte Madding, 70 s.w. 2d at 135. Th~s. a trial Court does not have the Statu- tciry authority to impose one:sentence·or~lly to the defendant and then at some later date, enter a diff- erent, greater or !esse~ sentence, in his presence, in the written judgment outside•the deEendant's or State's presence. See Id at 136. Such a system would create hovoc; a trial Court judge could orally pro- nounce sentence in open court while the defendant and his family and friends and pos~ibl~ victim ``~ily and friends,_ and the prosecutor are all present to pbj~ct,. A defendant who thought he was serve a ten year sen- tence would even~a11y discover that instend, his sen- 7 tence has been modified to twelve years, or the State would e~entually discover that the sentence been modi- fied to ten years., such a system would be unfair to both parties and to socity at. large. such would inject both parties andibtolerable le~el of uncertainity into the sentence from becoming 0 final 0 until the trial Court'; plenary authority had expired.n A trial Court has the inherent authorit¥ to alter, modify, or ~ac- ate its ruling, but it does not have the inherent authority to al- ter, modify 6r vacate a sentence"tmposed in open court without Sta- tutory authorization and without the presence of the parties. See 121 s.w. 3d 768, 770-771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). VII with the foregoing in mind, as previously demonstrate, and based oh the records, unequivocally shows that the trial Court [GRANTED] Relator's [MOTION], ~hd``ORDERED' hearing 'NUNC PRO TUNC' and fur~ ther 'ORDERED' the 'CORRECTION' of Relator's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' from [1ST DEGREE AGGRAV~TED KIDNAPPING] [TOl [2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING-RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PEACE]. P~Dsuant to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp~ 2014); See also Starr v. state, 126 s.w~ 3d 647, 658 n *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2004)(citing Williams v. St~he, 851 s.w. 2d 282, 287 (Tex. Crim. App 1993). However, in the instant case, the trial Court is refusing to Ora+ lly pronounce the [R]e-sentence~tn Relat~r's presence. In accordahce 8 withhTEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vernn Supp. 2014). This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, has held ih``i~±lar situate(s), ha~ C6nditionally Granted Maridamus Relief, to afford the trial Court ~o cpmply with st~tutbry provisions, TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art, 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon Supp. 2014). To Orally Pronounce the Sentence. in Relator's presence. See In re Risley, 190 s.w. 3d 854 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006)("Mandamus lies to compel the trial court to impose sentence ig the presence of the defendant")~ PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Relator's ["Lbwe"J, prays this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, cohsider each and every point raised herein, and as a matter of law. _Take the appropriate actions under the circumstances, in this case, as the law and justice re- quires. Respectfully Submitted ·();;H;L!I} d&.J.L ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750 HUGHES UNIT. RT. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 CERTIFICATE SERVICE I, Arthur David Lowe, being the Relator, herein,the 'Motion for Leave To File Writ Of Mandamus,' I SWEAR UNDER PENLTY OF PERJURY, that the st~tement made herein and the records are ALL TRUE and CORRECT, and can be verified, by its entitled custodian of the re- i,.:\.. ... :..·: .• ::.1 9 cords, and this Hono~able Court of Crimnal Appeals, also On July 28, 2014, Ordered the records supplementaled to the (CCA), ~lerk's official r~cords. See WR-25,679-15, ... *[NOT~CE]* JUEY 28, 2014. relator further atkno.wledges : .:. : , t.ha-t-, a Copy of the same 11 MO- TION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF MANDAMUS'. has b~en ~·livered by u. S. Mail>Postal;Service to:CHRIS DANIEL, HARRIS COUNTY, DISTRICT CLERK'S, P.O. BOX 4651, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651. to file and pro- cess a copy to the 339th District Court the Honorable presiding jud- ge Maria T. (Terri) Jackson. On this 10 , day of ___ Ju LJ____,2o15. .....;.._ Respectfully Submitted ();dJzW) c:lauG . . ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750 HUGHES UNIT. RT. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 IO I ,., :· --· ... .· CaSl' CPJ5?!\.:?.U?.-718 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. App.-Amerillo [7th Dist] 1995) . . . . . . . . 15 Brecheisen V. State, .
958 S.W.2d 490(Tex. App.-Fo~t Worth 1997) ... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Brecheisen V. State, .
4 S.W.3d 761(Tex. Crim. App. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Buchana V. State, 881 s.w. 2d 376 (Tex. :App.-Housto.n [1 Dist], 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . 7
911 S.W.2d 11, On remand WL 640704,_.~. ~--··· ....... ~ ....... ] petition for discretionary review · Dickson V. State, 988 S .w. 2d at 268 .......· ... _.-.-.· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Hughes V. State,.
493 S.W.2d 166(Tex. Crim. App.'1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Johnson V. State, 233 s.w. 3d 420 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Jones v. State, 7~5 s.w. 2d at 201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 7 Kanya v. State, 795 s.w. 2d 36 (Tex. App.-Houston [lst dist] 1990).: . . . . . . . . 16 State ex rei. Latty V. Owns, 907 s.w. 2d 484 (Tex.1995.) ........................... -. . . . . . . . . . 15 ~arte Lemke, 13 s.w. 3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ex parte Madding,
70 S.W.3d 131(Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Marshall v. State, 860 s.w. 2d 142 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet) ..... -. . . . . . . . 10 Mitchell v. State, 942 s.w. 2d 170 (Tex. App.-Amerillo, 1997)~--········· ...... 10 Ex earte Phillip, .
176 S.W.3d 818(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.10 iii iQ> ?'i Shaw V .· State,
539 S.W.2d 887(Tex. Cr. App. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Smith V. State, ·IS s·.w. 3d at 298 (Tex. App.-Amerillo, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Starr V. State,
126 S.W.3d 647(Tex. App.·-Houston [14th Dist], 2004) ........ 8 State V. Evans, 817 s.w. 2d 576 (Tex. App.-Waco 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
843 S.W.2d 576(Tex. Crim. App. 1992) . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 State V. Kanpa, . .
795 S.W.2d 36(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1 1990) . . . . . . . . .
16 Taylor v. State, 131 s.w. 3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 200~) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Thompson V• State, 108 s.w. 3d 287 (Tex. Crim~ App. 2008) .. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Tooke v. State,
642 S.W.2d 514(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1 19'82) ........ 14 Vallez v. State,
121 S.W.3d 778(Tex. App .. -San Antonio, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Ex parte Vasquez, 712-·S.W. 2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Ex parte Voelkel, 517 s.w. 2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 FEDERAL CASES: PAGES Bald v. Hale,
68 U.S. 223. I Wall. 223 (1863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Bl~kely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 2961124 S .Ct. 2531 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 _Downey V. United States,
67 App. D.C. 1921 91 F.3d 223(1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Landford v. Idaho, 500 u.s. 1101 126 s.ct. 1723 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . 11 In re Oliver,
333 U.S. 2571 68 S. Ct. 499(1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 iv :00024 t::"``·;J::;::.:;:'!:.-``.~.'-1.»:r.~n~_.,.._ __- ·...-~....- - - - · · · - - - · · - - - · - - - · - · · Struck v. United States,
93 S. Ct. 2260(1973)_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . 16 STATUTES: TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2014) . . . . . . 2,3 TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04 (Vernon 1993} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.32 (Vernon Supp. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.33 (Vernon Supp. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TEX.R. APP. Rule 44.2; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TEX.R. APP. P,ROC. 50(b);~ . • . . • • • • . • . . • • . . • . . . • • . • . . • . . . ~ ••••..•.. 3 FEDERAL STATUTES: FED.R.
Id. 5 :00031oroo_........_,. -- - I ,.. CAUSE No. 659156-B EX PARTE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE ~ IN THE 339TH DIS.TRICT COURT Applicant, v. § OF THE STATE OF TEXAS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS representative(s). TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT: NOW COMES, Arthur David Lo~e, [~ereinaft~r referred to as Appl- icant and submits the ['SEPARATED MEMORANDUM'], p~rsuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN, art. 11.07. In support of this request for an Order pursuant to T.EX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03,[Pronoune- ing:··sentence •] . The court Ordered .a Hearing in 'NUNC PRO TUNC' pro- · ceeding. On Applicant's 'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. And Granted the 'Motion-Nunc Pro Tunc' Ordered hearing· in open Cburt and made Oral pronouricement corrected the'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE', that the Court recorda reflects 2nd Degree Felony-Aggrav- a ted Kidnapping Relaese vic.tim,.dn a safe place. this hearing and Oral Pronouncement to:. correct It he· 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE"., in Applicant's ab~ence, such actiohs viblates due proc~s~, in that Applicant is en- title to be present for Oral Pronouncement of ·Sentence correction in person, and will show the following: [APPLICANT IS BEING UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED) GROUND OF ERROR ONE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING, PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, IN ITS, ORDER, CORRECTED THE RECORD TO REFLECT 2ND DE- GREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE. THE HEAR- 1 ~- -· ··--r.. . . ING AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, TO CONFORM TO THE JURY'S VERDICT ON SPECIAL ISSUE. ORDERED AN ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT 'NUNC- PRO TUNC' CORRECTION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, REDUCED THE ENTRY INTO THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 1ST DEGREE AGGRAVATED KID- NAPING. CORRECTED THE RECORDS TO READ 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPP- ING, HOWEVER, THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT CONFLICTS WIT THE WRITTEN JUDG- ~ENT AND SENTENCE. THE COURT IN ITS ORDER CORRECTED THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE TO 2ND DEGREE FELONY OFFENSE, WHICH IS A LESS DEGREE PUNISH-. AENT, AS A MATTER OF LA~. THE JUDGMENT REFLECTS A HARSHER PUNISHMENT -·AND SENTENCE 'LIFE' AS NO CORRECTION MADE, REFLECTS 1ST DEGREE FELONY OF ASSESSMENT OF THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT, RATHER THEN AS A MATTER OF LAW, 2ND DEGREE2-YEARS NO MORE THAN 20-YEARS SUCH VIOLATES DUE PRO- CESS OF LAW. APPLICANT BEING ENTITLE TO ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE IN HIS PRESENTS, AT THE HEARING. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING The records reflects Applicant filed an Application for Writ of Habeas corpus, pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 {Ver- non Supp. 2013). On October lS1 2013. It was received and filed in the Harris county, District Clerk's Office. The Application was ace- ompanied with numeroGs other Motion~, specifically Applicant's 'MO- TION REFORMATION AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING JUDGMENT'. However, the tri~l Court disposed of the Habeas Corpus' Application as well as each 'Mo~ tion' Applicant d.iscovered that the trial Court Judge was ·not afford- ed copies of the 'Motion Reformation Aggrava,ted kidnapping Judgment' and-.the Attached documents •. No-t being pr-esent-ed -to t-he tr-ial Court. Applicant filed a 'Motion For Leave To file Writ Of Mandamus' to the Court of Criminal Appeals. And also as a requirement served the Harris County, District Clerk with a copy of the 'Motion For Leave To file Writ of Mandamus'. Requesting to the Court Of Criminal Appeals, to compel the H~rris County, District Court to forward .ALL the related. records of the Habeas Corpus Application proceeding. To complete the 2 before the Court and to s~rved the same to the Ha~ris County, Dis- trict Cl~rk. Because pursuant to Tex.R~ App. Proc. SO(b)("the burden is on the Ap~licant'to make sure the records are tomp}ete before the Court"). However, the Application for Writ of H~baeas Corpus was den- ied without a written ouder. There after the 'Motion for~Leave to:~fi~e gestion for Reconsideration'. also was denied. On January 14, 2014. The ``mo0adum Response to ·corresporice'was received by the trial Court Obviously the·irial Court Judge was afforded a proper review of the 'Motion' with the records appended. tri~l Court Granted Applicant's 'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. The trial Court entered an Order On April 21, 2014. Other:•PLEASE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE CORRECTED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE. ALSO OUR RECORDS HAVE BEEN COR- ' RECTED TO REFLECT 2ND DEG~EE FELONY-AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING REDEASE;VIC- TIM IN A SAFE PLACE." (Emphasis added) The record reflects that Applicant [NO-LONGER] convicted of the Fe- lony offense ['First Degree Ag``av~ted Kidnapping']. This Order refer~ red to was after the disposition of the initial Application -for Writ of Habeas Corpus' .By Both Cpurts'. ~he trial Court On November 12, 2013. arnd the court of Criminal Appeals, On January 8, 2014. On April 14, 2014. The Harris County, Disttict Cl~rk's Office-R~tention Corres- pondence received Applicant's 'Motion Refp~mation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. The trial Court On•. Apri-l 2J,i.o2014i;,~_well after Applicant filed the initial Application· for writ of Habeas corpus.~.· Article 11.07, §4, permits the consideration of a subs~quent appli- catioon for writ of habeas corpus, only under exceptional circumstances: ~a)'If a subsequent application for writtof habeas corpus is filed after f~nal disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the metter of or grant relief based 6ri th~ subsequent applicat1."on, unless, th e application contains 3 :00029- -. suffi~ient specific facts establishing that: (!)'The current claims and issues have not been and could not been presented previously in a original application or in a pre- vious considered application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date applicant filed the previous application; •.. (c)'For purpose of subsection {a)(l), a factual basis of claims is available on or before a date described by ~ ·:sabsect ion (a) ( 1), if the factual basis 1 was: not assertainable through the exerci~e of reasonable diligence or before that date. Thus, reaching this conclusion'that, Applicant is entitled to have the merits of this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus consideration because·· as Applicant pres en ts•. by the. preponderance of the factual ·1 eg- al basis was unavailable at the time of the initial filed Application and its di~position by Both the trial Court and the court of C~iminal Appeals. As d~monstrated above the trial Coutt Granted Applicant's 'Motion' and entered an Order 'Nunc Pro Tunc• Corrected the- 'JUDGMENT AND[SENTENCE]''· Reduced the Felony offense from [lst degree aggravat- ed kidnapping]. To reflect the Jury's actual Verdict '[2nd Degree Agg- ravated Kidnapping]' pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04(b)(Vernon l993);See also Hughes V. State, 493 S~W. 2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973){"A judgment may be reformed so as to show the offense of which the accused was found guilt"y··py=:: a·. court· or -·Jury;,).. The actions taken by the trial Court Judge, On [April 21, 2014] was well after Applicant's initial Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus' filed On [October 15, 2013], in the Harris Cou~nty, .District Clerk's 4 .?:•. ;/ .," office. And was'Denied Without Written Order' On [January 8, 2014] by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ... Thus, Applicant is entitle to this Application for Writ of Habaes Corpus, consideration being adequ- ately presented and as demonettate above by the preponderance of the factual legal ba~i~ was not available at the time Applicant filed the initial Application. See e.g., Ex parte Lemke, 13 s.w. 3d 791, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)(conc1uding that court would address merits of subsequent habeas corpus application when applicant-show that claims could not have been presented in his ·initial ~rit application because the factuaR basis for it was unavailable"). Thus, based on the factual basis, preserited herein and based on the evidence and the records,· in this instant Application, The Court should find that Ap~licant'~ has reached.his burden. That this Honorable Court and the Texas Supreme Court Of Criminal Appeals, Both have jurisdiction and Statutory authority to address Applicant's claims. Under Article 11.07, Section 4{a)(l), Texas Code Crimjnal Procedure. The recoid in the in~tant case, reflect that the trial Court Judge presiding over Applicant's 'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. Entered and Order: Corrected the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. Therefore, effectively reduced Applicant's Sentence to a 2nd-Degree Fe- lony. Pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE. ANN. §12.33(a), [Second Degree Felony Punishment] provides: (ci) 'An··iridividual adjti``~ guilty of a FeJony of the Second degree shall be punished in the Texas Departmnet Justice-In~titutiona1 Divi- sion any t'erm mo·r:e-·not ·:bl:T.an [20-years] nor D..ess than 2-years] The difference fro~ the original trial Court's "Sentence'' ... See also TEX.PENAL CODE ANN.§12.32(a), [First Degree Felony Punishment] level provides; (a)'An individ~al adjudged guilty of the First Degree shall be punishm~nt in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institution- Division for '[LIFE]' or any term not more than [99-years] or less than [5-years]
id. The 'Judgmentand Sentence' is in conflict with the punishment im- p6sed. The records reflect:that Applicant alone did voluntarily re- lease the complai~ants alive and in a safe place. As a matter of law, pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE AN~. §20.04(b}(Vernon 1993), allows a de- fendant who has been convicted of aggravated·kidnapping to mitigate punishment, if he can prove by the preponderance-of the evidence that he voluntarily released the ~ict~ms alive and in a safe place. This former Statute that Applicant was convicted §(b) and that to the current Statute (d). The former Statute in whcih Applicant was con- victed. TEX.PENAL CODE·ANN. §20.04(b)(Vernon 1993), which states: (b)'An offense under this ~ection is a felony of the first degree unless the actor voluntarily releases the victim alive and in a safe place. in which it is a felony of the second degree.'
Id. The trialCourt Ordered that the Official ~ecords be corrected to reflect that Applicant conviction should read Aggravated Kidnapping 2nd Degree Felony, and Ordered that the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' be corrected. However, the Judgmenet reflects .that of assessment of pun- ishment ['LIFE']. Where the Sentence Order to be corrected, but the 6 :00032 attached Sentence Sheet to the Judgmnet reflects the'Sentence EXE- CUTED'' ... and .apply: is 'Silent' ... ! The Court of Criminal Appeals, have held that "When the Oral Pro- nounce~e~t of sentence in open court and the written judgment con~ fl·icts to. the Oral Pronouncement controls." See Thompson V. State, 108 s.w. 3d 287, 290 (Tex. C~im. App. 2003). The Court further held Iri Smith V.
State, 15 S.W.3d at 298-99("[B]efore a judgment rtunc pro tunc may be entered, there must be proof the_ p~oposed j~dgment was actually entered or pronounced at a eariler time".);See also Jones V.State, 795 S.W.2d at 201; Dickson V. State, 988 s.w. 2d at 268. In the instant case, the trial Court Judge presiding over the "Nunc Pro Tnuc' hearing and proceedings, Order is based on a preponder~nce of the evidence. This case being unique, In that thete is not Only the Testimony of the Complainant (TANYA MILLER LODEN), that .. Appli- cant alone drove Her and Her (INFANT-BABY), She referred to as (BABY- JOE)--[JOSEPH MILLER LODEN], in Cause No, 659154. To the shoulder of the FWY c~utioned He~ of Her where-abo~ts existed Her car, ~he drove away, Wheh She arrived home, She called her Husband and the Police (SF III, 62-70). There is ~lso a [Verdict Form], that was submitted to the Jury, although egregious attached to the Jury's Charge at the GUILT/INNOCENCE Phase. See Buchanan V. State,·
881 S.W.2d 376(Tex. App.-Houston [1 otst] 1994), See alsb 911 s.w. 2d 11, On remand
1996 WL 640740, petition for discretionary review refused). The records reflects that the Original trial Court _presiding over Applicant's trial was very aware of the evid~nce that Applicant did 7 00033 voluntarily released the Complainants alive and in a safe place. But [DID NOT GIVE ANY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON VOLUNTARY RELEASE IN A SAFE PLACE], as a matter of law, pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.04(b){Vernon 1993). Such actions taken by a trial Court has been addressed In Starr V. State, 126 s.w. 3d 647, 658 n *1 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist], 2004). In the instant\case, the Original trial Court submitted by attach- ed to the Jury Charge Guilt/Innocence Phase. A [VERDICT FORM] On [SPECIAL ISSUE]. The Jury took notice of the Document in the Form of a [VERDICT FORM] submitted to them, and reached an unanimous verdict. The attached to the Jury Charge at Guilt/Innocence Pha~e, provided ~: the following: 'SPECIAL ISSUE' Now, if you have found the Defendant guilty of aggravat~d kidnap- ~iog, as defined in ·this charge, and only in that event; you must de- termine whether or not the defendaht voluntarily released the victim alive and in a safe place. "Do you the Jury find the defendant voluntarily released the vic- tim alive and in a safe place, in the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted?" ANSWER: "We do" or "We do not". ANSWER: WE DO ----------------------------- David L. Phileps Foremari of the Jury VERDICT We, the jury, return in open court the above answer as our answer to the special issue submitted to us, and the same is our verdict in 8 this case. David L. Philpes Fo~eman of the Jurr (emphasis added) Based on th .records, it is the te~timony by the Complainant (TANYA MILLER LODEN)(SF III, 62~70), and the actual Jury~s Verdict Form. The Jury's Verdict on the Special Issue. That prompted the trial Court's Judge to, Grant ·Applicant's'Mo~ion Reformation Aggravated kidnapping Judgment' and Ordered 'Nunc Pro Tunc' Hearing that Ordered:· 'JUDGMENT AND[SENTENCE] ([CORRECTED]) THE RECORDS TO REFLECT 2nd-DEGREE FELONY AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE• :VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE.' The trial Court Judge presiding over the 'Nunc Pro Tunc·· Otders and Hearing Corrected the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' to reflect the Jury's actual verdict. Where the Original trial Court presided over the case, the injustice that was done. The trial c6urt Judge presiding over the 'Nunc Pro Tunc' Hearing Corrected the injustice. However, erred in the proceeding Ordered Hearing 'Nunc Pro Tunc' and Ordered Applicant's 'CORRECTED JUDGMENT-AND SENTENCE'. The trial Court erred in its Order Oral Pronouncement at the Hearing in Applicant's absence. ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT'OF SENTENCE The trial Cour~'s Order 'NUNC PRO TUNC' to· Correct Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE. Violates TEX.CODE tRlM. PROC. ANN. art •. 42~03, §l(a), Applicant being entitle as a matter of law, and due process of law to an Oral Pronouncement of Sentence, in accordance with TEX.CODE CRIM •.PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, sec. l(a)(Vernon Supp. 1993 & 2014), by having O~ally Pronoun~ement of Sentence, in Applicant's presents. See 9 ···. . .. -:-~ .... . •• -- :00035 .::... ·'fv,...-.-~ •• ~-~- . - I • Marshall v. State, 860 s.w. 2d 142. (Tex. App.-Da11as 1993, no pet) ;Ex parte Madding, 70 s.w. 3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002);Taylor v. State,131 S.W.3d 492, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(citing TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 42.03, §1(a){Vernon2006). The trial Court's Order reflects that the Oral Pronouncement kQ ./ 1'. correct Applicant's 'Sentence' as pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE .. ANN. §20.04{b)(Vernon Supp. 1993 & 2014);See al~o Ex parte Phillip, 176 s. W. 3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)("The expectation of having the oral pronouhcement match the written judgment applied only to sentencing issues, as the term of confinement assessed and whether multipLe sen- tence would be served concurrently"). It is error in the trial Court entered the 'Nunc Pro Turic' Ordering the Hearing Pronounced Correction of Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. without affording Ap~licahti an opportuntiy to be ?iesent for the Hearing,. Sentence, Representation by Counsel, in accord to Applicant due process of law. See Shaw V. State, 539 s.w. 2d 887 (Tex. Cr. App. 1976). In Mitchell v. State, 942 s.w. 2d 170 (Tex. App.-Amaril1o, 1997)("the appellate court, held that, "When valid judgment of conviction for first degree felony offense was not nunc pro tunc ju~3ment, butimerely a correction made during term time, there was no requirement ~or notice hearing and proof in defend- ant presence"). Wherefore In Vallez V. S~ate, 21 s.w. 3d 778 (Tex. ·. App.~San Antonio 2000)("entry of second nunc pro tunc judgment indic- ated,that defendantis three controlled substance prosecuting had not been consolidated for plea ahd sentencing, was error, where defendant was not given opportunity to be. present at hearing and to be heared 10 :00036 ~nd represented by counsel, to accord hi~ du~ pr6cess")~ ON FEDERAL REVIEW A defendant is-constitutionally entitled to due process, at a bare minimum, due process requires that a defendant be given notice if the punishment to which he has been sentenced. See e.g., Landford V. Idaho 500 u.s. 110, Ill S.Ct. 1723 (199l)("[A) notice of issue to be resolv• ed by the adversary process is a fundamental characti~t6: of fair pro- cedure"):Baldwin v. Hale,68 U.S. 68223. I wall. 223 (1863)([C]ommon justice requires that no man shall be condemned in his person or pro- perty without notice and an opportunity to make his defense"):In re Oliver, 333 u.s. 257, 257, 68 s.ct. 499 (1945)(due process requites that a person be given 'reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opporunity be hea~d in his defense[ '] ... to examine the witnesses against him to offer testimony, to be represented by counsel"):e.g., Downey V. United States,
67 Ohio App. 192,
91 F.3d 223, 229 (1937)("changes in the record of judgment made without notice to defendant or opportun- ity to be heard would deprive person of liberity without due process of law: "[P]roceedings in absence of the appellant to correct the _re- cord would have been impc.oper, sence the ultimate question involved, extent of valid imprisonment to which he might subjected, was one of vital interest to him");Compare United States v. Spiers,82 F.3d 1274, 1282 (3rd Cir. 1996)(because had notice and was present in court-room rights were not effected by the failure to give effect to a complete defense to prosecution see :FED.R.CRIM. PL;.:· 43··.:; .:,C:<: ;See also Blakely V. Washington,
542 U.S. 296,
124 S. Ct. 2531(2005). Therefore, based ll :00037 on the records, of the 'Nunc Pro Tunc• hearing proceedings, the Pro- nouncement to correct Applicant's:•Judgment and Sentence• by the trial Court Judge presiding over the 'Nu~c Pro Tunc' hearing, Conducted in Applicant's absence. Is. error on a magnitude that violates Applicant's due process rights, and due process of law, to hold such a hearing with- ~ut Applicant being p~esent, to afforded the opportunity to be heard, to be represehted by Counsel, in accord to Applicant's due process of law ... [this actual] 'Nunc Pro Tunc' hearing in open Court where the pre- siding Honoreble Judge [Maria T. (Terri) Jackson, 339th Judicial Distict c6urt--can Only b~ found on the trial Court's actual Minutes, as th~ District Clerk'~ Office Records, has omi·tted the trial Court's Judge Order--Granting Applicant's Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. That the presiding trial Court Judge Ordered On April 21. 2014. As shown by the Document received By Applicant from the 339th District court, and being presented append in the 'Appendix-• with other Exhibits. As also Applicant's Affidavit; On April 21, 2014. The trial Court Ordered specifically ... ~Other:PLEASE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE COR- RECTED· JUDGMENT··.AND SENTENCE. ALSO, OUR RECORDS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED TO REFLECT~ND DEGREE FELONY-AGGRAVATED·KINAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A BAFE PLACE. (Emphasis added) Surely the tri~l Court's presiding Honor~ble Judge Maria T. (Terri) Jackson 339th District Court recollects Her Own Order give~ On April 21, 2014, to correct Applicant's 'Judgment and Sentence'. It being evid- ent the Judge's Orders was not followed nor carried-out. Making the'Ncnc Pro Tunc' Order, hearin~ and proceeding, in violation of Appli~ant1`` due process rights, Applicant's has an expectation to be preserit at the 12 hearing, to be given notice, of the hearin~ to be allowed to introduce evidence and to be heard, concerning Sentencing, and to be represented by Counsel·~in accord to Applica~t's due process of law. In that Appli~ cant respectfully request the Court to Re-Order the Hearing and Prone~ uncement of Sentence. That Applicant be present at the hearing, to be gi¥an Notice, of the Hearing to be allowed to intr6duce evidence and to be heard, concerning the S~ntenecing, and to be represented by Coun- sel, in accord to Applicant's due process of law . . ADDITIONALLY, THE CLERK EGREGIOUS-SELF ENTRY IN THE JUDGMENT CHANGED APPLICANT'S (SBD)-SENTENCE BEGIN DATE, AND TRANSMITTED, CHANGE TO APPLICANT'S [SBD), TO (TDCJ-ID), RECORDS. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMI- NAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION--CLASSIFICATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RE- CORDS. The records reflects that the Trial Court's Order was given to the Clerk in the 339th District Court [L. GUEVARA), On April 21, 2014. The Clerk, however, entered Her Own'Entry Of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc' which reads as follows: I-OFFENSE FOR WHICH DEFENANT CONVICTION SHOU~D READ: AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE (100714) 2-DEGREE OF OFFENSE SHOULD READ: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. T-he ·records furthe.r., ... reflects .that _The Clerk: [L. ___ GuevetriiJ~ ([CHANGED APPLICANT'S])--[SBD)-SENTENCE BEGIN DATE]).to 3/12/1993. From its Origi- nal Sentence Begiri date 3/"10"/1993. The date Ap~lic&nt was Arrested and held in Detention On 3/ "10• /1993. The Cl.erk: [L. Gurvara] , transmit ted to (TDCJ=ID)_,_Texas Depar;t:ment of Criminal Justice-Institutional Di vi- sion--Classi fication and Custodian of Records .. That 11 [NO-CHANGE] 11 in Applicant's [SBD] OR [MAX DATE] ... W~ere in Fact the records reflect the Change was made ONLY to Applicant [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. The Change is also reflected in Applicant's Corrected Judgment the Change 3/12/1993 . . 13 :00039 as to the Original Correct Judgment [SUPERSEDED BY NUNC PRO TUNC EN- TRY DATE 4/21/14]. Do Not reflect any such date of 3/12/1993. Nor did the trial Court's Order authorize such a Correction Or Change. The Corrected 'Judgment Sheet arid the attached Sentence Sheet at the ·lower life part reflect the Clerk: [L. Guevara] and her initial. The Clerk: [L. Guevara] has NO power~nd was given NO authorizat- ion. To take such actions. Reg~rdless of whether or riot any Change was made to Applicant's Time Credit. Even the power of a trial Court is limited in such situations. To impose a change in a defendant's [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. After ~he a defendant's sentence has be- gun. For an Example a~·~ttempt was made to cumulate sentence after the defendant has begun derving the first sentence was void. See Ex parte Voelkel, 517 s.w. 2d 291-93 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1984, pet). Similar!~, an attempt to resentence defendant to take an enhancement paragraph into account is void. See Tooke V. State,
642 S.W.2d 514, 518 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1982, no pet). A defendant's sen- tence beg in to run on the day it is pron~unc_ed. TEX .COD_E CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.09, .§1 (Vernon Supp. 1993}:State V. Evans,
817 S.W.2d 807, 808 · ( Tex ~- "App :-=waco -1991) , aff 'd in part on other grounds, 843 s.w. 2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). It is well-settled that a trial Court has ·.,.; authority to Order'Nunc. Pro Tunc' entrie·s·-in··a-j'udgment and Sentence. See Johnson V. State,
233 S.W.3d 420(Tex. App.-Forth Wbrth 2007}(A co~rection can be made to reflect what actually happen at trial by entry nunc pro tunc judgment, but corrections can be as 14 ·.: 00040 to what was done not as to what should have been done). In Beasley· v. State, 718 s.w. 2d 304, 305·(Tex. App.-[7th Dist], 1995)("Trial judge could not alter a jury verdict after it\had been accepted and entered into the record, and was ordered to enter a sentence that was ..· con- ~istent with the jury's verdict"): See also State ex rel. Latty V. Owns, 907 s.w. 2d 484, 486 (Tex.l995)("Judicial action taken after the court's jurisdiction over a case was nullity"). Therefore, Clerk: [L. Guevara] cannot m~ke such a. change in Appl- icant's [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. This is especially true. Having No authorization to do so. The trial Court's Order was to make corrections to Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. And to 'ALSO, RECORDS CORR·ECTED TO REFLECT 2ND DEGREE FELONY-AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE. Not to make any Changes •to Applicant's [SBD].-Sentence Begin Date.· The trial. Court with legal latitute. Did not seek to make s~ch a chan- ge. The Clerk: [L. Guevara] has NO-Legal Nor Autorization to make Chan- ges to suit Her desire or intent. In rega~ds to changes made to a de- fendant's [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date, arid Time Credit. In an analogous case. In Breacheisen v. State, 958 S~W. 2d 490, 492 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997), the app~11ate court, said "HARM' is presumed, and in this case, it is clear."Ibid. It found thatharm to the appellant was "de- nial of cr~dit for the time she was in cus~ody" in the other counties, and the loss of a wihdfal1" which shob[d would have from a dismissal.
id. at 492-93.but further,· held that, because the trial court granted 15 :.·~-t·:.. £,-· ·--- · · · - - - - · · - · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = = - - the appellant credit for the time she was in custody, the appellant had been ma[d]e whole'' and the. error "did not contribute to the con-' viction or p~nishment. Nor did it deprive appellant of a substantial right.·"
id. at 493... But Brecheisen, filed (PDR) (CCA), the Court of Criminal Appeals, held that,,. the,court of appeals in its conclusion is Wrong on its face under either standard; to reversible error in TEX.R. APP. PROC~ 44.2[a) & (b). Not Only did the trial Court's error in denying the motion to dismiss ~dntribute to the conviction or pun- ishment," it was essentd~l to them. See TEX.R. P. Rule 44.2(a), and it cannot be said that a defendant's substantial rights were not effected by the f~ilure to give effect to a complete defense to prosecution. See TEX.R. APP. Rule 44.2(b).: Brecheisen v. State,~4 s.w. 3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), petition.for discretionary review.
id. The UnitedStates Supreme Court took this view of the remedy for error th~t would bar retrial reversal on appeal~ in .. another analogous case. In Struck v. United States, 412 u.s.· 434, 93 s.ct. 2260 {1973), defendant was guilty .of a federal pffense.· When the government failed t6 prosecute him for ten months, he was denied.the speedy trial which is required by the Sixth Amendment [The court of appeals attempted to cure the error by givdng [STRUCK CREDIT] against his sentence for time dur- ing which he ha~ been denied a speedy ~rial. The Supreme Court revers- ed, holding that the "Only possible remedy'' for violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy tria~ is a ddsmissal.id. at 440,93 s.ct. 2260 ..... (emphasis added). And Ih State V. Kanpa,
795 S.W.2d 36, 39 (Tex. App.-Bouston [1st 16 ;00042 Dist], 1990)(If the district clerk's records do not reflect correctly the appellant may properly seek to have them corrected). Tn this respective, Applicant respectfully reg~esting the Court to make the appropriate corrections. Ent~red egregious in Applicant's Judgment and Sentence, and thereto correct Applicant [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. Back to its Original Date Of 3/10/1993. From the egregious entry in the Judgment and T~ansmitted to (TDCJ-ID), Texas Deprtment of Criminal Justice-Institut~onal Division--Classification and Custodian of Records. The records should properly reflect the date of the •alleg- ed offense on March 4, 1993. Applicant being found guilty by Jury On October 2~, 1993~ and Arrested On March 10, 1993. Being the e``ct: date Applicant was taken intoJ,custudy and held in detention at the West Uni- versity Place Police Department. Being the Arresting agency. In th~se·error presented. The Court should Grant Applicant's requests and Order a Hearing and· Orally'?ronouncement of Applicant's 'Judgment· and Sentence' iri Applicant's presents, to ~fford Applicant due process ·right and due process of law, that He may have the opportunity to be heard, ;~·.ntrod!Jce eyidence, exaim~ any "{i.tnesses. against Him, to be re- presented by Counsel. Thus, the Court should follow the well-settled law set-out in Vasquez, not because the written judgment was "void", but because 'it violates a defendant's Constitutional Right to due process to Orally Pronouncement Sentence to him and that later without giving him an opportunity to be heard, enter a written judgment impo~ing a significant harsher Sentence. See Ex parteVasquez,712 S.W.2d 754(Tex. Crim. App. 1975). 17 CONCLUSION OF PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Applicant prays this Honorable Court consider each and every;point ra~sed herein and act a~crdingly, in respect of the law, Granting these requests, considering the evid- ence presented and the applicabl precedent cited i~ proposit~ion above, that this Honorable C~urt action taken aa a matter of law, and in the interest of justice. Respectfully Submitted 0&-hi.JJJ d?owt ARTHUR DAVID LOWE JR. :T.D.C.J.-ID#669750 HUGHES UNIT. RT· .. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Arthur David Lowe, being the [Applicant], herein hereby certify that the foregoing is a TRUZ and CORRECT copy Applicant's Applicatiom ' for Writ of Habeas Corpus• pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §(a)(l)(Vernon Supp. 2014) ..'~'}1at a ,TRUE copy has been Jeliverec;] by U.S. Mail Postal Service to : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN,,TEXAS 78711 (as the Letter accompanyihg this Applicatipn acknowle4ge to the Clerk(s) the::State's Representative(s) being the District Attorney(s) Off~ce and the Courts')) and the same be- ing Mailed to:CHRIS DANIEL, HARRIS COUNTY, DISTRICT CLERK, P.O. BOX 4651, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651. ( ( AX.L) the Records 1 Documents .can be verified by the Harris County, Disttict Clerk's Office and Official Re- cords and (TDCJ-TD), Te.xas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional 18 :00044 Classification and Custodian Of Records. And the trial Court Re- cords, Minutes the 'UNNC PRO TUNC'. hearing I further SWEAR Under PENITLY OF PERJURY, That ALL the information, Documents can be verified as stated herein, Application and, Fo~m~-~pplication. And the same is delivered as stated indicated. On this the 2 'L day of Ju <..}( --"----'---- , 2o14. ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, ProSe. T.D.C.J.~ID#669750 APPENDIX-COPIES-LISTED 1). Response to App1dcant's Missiveu concerning 11.07, Application for Writ Of habeas Corpus (FILED OCTOBER 15, 2013)(1-Page) 2). Applicant's Motion for Suggestion For Reconsideration: Filed In the Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals (DENIED JANUARY 14, 2014) (1. of 19~ Pages). 3). Motion For Leave To~Fi1e Writ Of Madamus, WR-25,679-13-(FILED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS***APPLICANT'S SUPPLY TO THE COURT WITH THE WRIT NUMBER, BEING UNABLE TO PROVIDE A COPY AT THIS "TIME* 4). Service Copy On Harris Coun.ty,· District Clerk's Office--Motion for ·'' Leave To File Writ Of Mandamus ( 1 of 9, Pgaes). 5). TriaU Court's Order 'Nunc Pro Tunc• Grantin~ Applicant's Motion attached [Superseded By Nunc Pro Tunc Entry Dated 4/21/14] (1 of 3, Pgaes--that includes Judgment & Sentence]. 6. The Clerk's Entry Of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc--attached--Judgment &· Sentence)."- 7) . [ Affidavit By Vanessa Jone,s,, Chairman, Class is fica t ion and Records attachments (1 of 7, Page~). 19 . :00045 CHRIS DANIEL HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK August 6, 2014 LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID #669750 HUGHES UNIT RT. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TX 76597 RE: CAUSE#659156-B 339th District Court Dear t\pplicanl: Yuilr post conviction application ror Writ or Habeas Cl>rpus was r~-ccivcd and lilcd Oil 07/:!'J/14. Article 11.07 or the Tc:-.as l.."lllk or Criminall'rm:~durc afli•rds the Stale 15 days in whkh to answer the application alicr having he~:n served wilh said applil.."alion. 1\l'lcr the 15 days allowed the Sl
1995 WL 19052eputy Criminal Post Trial CC: District Attorney Judge, Presiding Court 12111 FRANI\I.IN • P.O. lklX 4651 • HOUSTON. TEXAS 77210-4651 I'AC;r: I OF I Rr:v. 01-02-04 00114 . ·.' Belinda Hill Criminal Justice Center Interim First Assistant 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002-1901 HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DEVON ANDERSON August 6, 2014 Chris Daniel, District Clerk Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Ex parte LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID No. 659156-B in the 339TH District Court of Harris County, Texas .Filing date: 07/29/14 Date copy of writ delivered to District Attorney's Basket: 08/0~14-_ _ __ By: ERIN G BRYAN Dear Sir: ' I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the above-captioned post conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I waive service by certified mail as provided therein. I understand that I have 15 days from the date received to answer. Sincerely, ``UG 0 8 2014 Date Received Assistant District Attorney -········· · Harris County, Texas :00115 CAUSE NO. 0659156-B EX PARTE § § OF ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, having been served with . . an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CoDE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3 (West 2013), and would show the following: I. The applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the 339th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 0659156 (the primary case), where the applicant was convicted pursuant to a guilty Jury verdict for the felony offense of aggravated kidnapping. The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two (2) prior felony convictions, at life confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), formerly the Texas Department of Corrections. :00116 On January 19, 1995,· the First Court of Appeals affirmed the applicant's. appeal. Lowe v. State, No. 01-93-00987-CR, (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 19, 1995, pet. ref' d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). -The applicant filed a ·previous --writ -application challenging his conviction, cause number 0659156-A. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the applicant's first application on December ~8, 2013. · II. The State denies the factual allegations made in the instant application, except those supported by official court records, and offers the following additional · reply: The applicant alleges trial court error and clerical error. See Writ Application at 6-7. However, this is the applicant's second writ application. As the applicant was denied of his first application in cause number 0659156-A, Section 4 of Arti.cle 11.07 then governs the filing of this application. If a subsequent writ application is filed after the final disposition of an application challenging the same conviction, the Court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on a subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific ·facts establishing that: 2 :00117 (1) the current claims have not been and could not ·have been presented previously in an original or in a previously considered application because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application; or (2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. TEX. (RIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 11.07 § 4 (a) (West 2013) (emphasis added). The instant writ application ·was filed after the final disposition of the applicant's prior writ application, cause number 0659156-A, challenging the same . conviction. The applicant has failed to include. sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims could not have been presented previously .because. the factual or legal basis for the claims were unavailable; or that, by a preponderance of the evidence, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the instant writ of habeas corpus, and the instant writ should be dismissed. Ill. The applicant raises questions of law and fact which can be resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals upon review of official court records and without need for an evidentiary heari~g. 3 :00118 IV. ·Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the following address: Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr. TDCJ # 669750 Hughes Unit Rt 2 Box 4400 Gatesville, Texas 76597 SIGNED this 13th day of August, 2014. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 (713) 755-5240 fax Texas Bar I. D. #24051950 4 :00:119 CAUSE NO. 0659156-B EX PARTE § IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT § OF ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f) The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words inthe State's Original Answer is 621. Signed this 13th day of August, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 Texas Bar# 24051950 :00120 CHRIS DANIEL HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERI' August 14, 2014 LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID #669750 HUGHES UNIT RT. 2. BOX 4400 GATESVILLE, TX 76597 To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Article 11.07 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please tind enclosed copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ tiled in cause number 659156-B in the 339th District CoUJ1. [] State's Original Answer Filed August 13, 2014 0 Affidavit 0 Court Order Dated· 0 Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Atlidavit. 0 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order 0 Other · Sincerely. .-:~--· --....., (;`` ~_,1- ...(.~-);;,;;:;-/1-Ctt,vt-.) t~r·'\VY~l ·Erin Bryan, Deputy.~/ · Criminal Post Trial Enclosure(s)- - - - ·--··-------·----·-·-----··-·--··· . 1201 FIV\NI.:LIN • 1'.0. Box M1SI • HousTON. Trx,,s 77210-•H;51 • (XXX) 545-5577 Rr:v: Ol-02-04 :00121 ' ' . 1..{ . 1 i l '; •'' ~-·· • \ ,,•i I' ;,:•• •' /``-· CAUSE NO. 0659156-B [-~)· _____ _,.LU..,.,.:.. '.' EX PARTE § IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT § OF ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS THE STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER The Court has considered the application for writ of ,habeas corpus, the State's answer, and the official court records in the above-captioned cause. The Court finds that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to . ' the legality of the applicant's confinement which require an evidentiary hearing and recommends that the instant writ . application be dismissed because the applicant fails to include sufficient specific facts establishing that his grounds for relief could not have been presented previously because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable; or that, by ·a preponderance of the evidence, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. TEx. CODE CRIM. PRoc. ANN. art. 11.07 § 4(a) (West 2013). THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript and transmit same to the Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by TEX. CODE (RIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 {West 2013). The transcript shall include certified copies ofthe following documents: i.--··. 1 :00.122 1. the application for writ of habeas corpus; 2. the State's answer; 3. the Court's order; 4. the indictment, judgment and sentence, and docket sheets in cause number 0659156; 5. the Court's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law; and 6. the State's and the applicant's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (if any) . . The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the applicant, Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr., TDCJ # 669750, Hughes Unit, Rt 2 Box 4400, Gatesville, Texas 76597; and a copy of this order to counsel for the State, Sharon Y. Chu, Assistant District Attorney, Harris County Districf Attorney's Office, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002. By the following signature, the Court adopts the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, ConclusiQns of law and Order in cause number 0659156-B. AUG l 8 2UI( Signed this _ _ _ __ 2 :00123 CAUSE NO. 0659156-B li>•-.:.: . , f:__J~---...----·· EX PARTE §• IN THE 339TH /:lJsJtr~;`` '"' . § OF ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, T EX AS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has bee·n accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the following address: Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr. TDCJ # 669750 Hughes Unit Rt 2 Box 4400 Gatesville, Texas 76597 SIGNED this 13th day of August, 2014. Respectfully submitted, ,./ Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 (713) 755-5240 fax Texas Bar I. D. #24051950 .;~I 3 •, :00124 CAUSE NO. 06.59156-8 EX PARTE § IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT § OF ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f) The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc . . Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order is 441. I . Signed this 13th day of August, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, ( '. ,· Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 Texas Bar# 24051950 :00125.
Document Info
Docket Number： WR-25,679-24
Filed Date： 7/14/2015
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/29/2016