Silva, Gabriel

@,/24,@!"5@“01/
C - 4 - 010619 - 0833761 - B
EX PARTE ``_ 4 |N THE CR||\/||NAL D|STR|CT
`` __-_. _, ._ f _ _ _ § ``_ l ., __j: ,_"‘COURTNO _49F
GABR|EL``$``|L\?A' ’ " `` ' _ ' ' `` TARRANTcouNTY, TE)<``AS
RECElvEDaN
APPLchNT's WRHTEN osJECTIONS COURT OF CRH\/I|NAL APPEALS
sTATEs RESPONSE To APPL|cATloN FOR WR|T
DE HABEAS coRPus
-``DEC 1 ``
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SA|D COURT: 8 2015
COMES NOW GABR|EL S|LVA, APPL|CANT PRO SE, AND F|LES TH|S H|S WR|TTEN OBJECTIONS TO
THE STATES RESPONSE TO H|S APPL|CAT|ON FOR WR|T OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND WOULD SHOW UNTO
THE couRT THEREOF:
Abe| Acosta, C|erk
SPEAC|AL STATEMENT TO THE COURT
APPL|CANT IS PROCEED|NG |N TH|S ACT|ON PRO-SE, W|THOUT THE ASS|STANCE OF
PROFESS|ONAL COUNSEL, DUE TO H|S lNDlGENCY. ACCORD|NGLY, APPL|CANT |NVOKES THE STANDARD
OF REV|EW AS ESTABL|SHED BY THE UN|TED STATES SUPRE|\/lE COURT |N HA|NES VS. KERNES, 404 U.S.
519, 52 S. Ct. 594 (1972) WHERE|N THE COURT ASSERTED THAT ”PLEAD|NGS OF PRO-SE LlTlGANTS ARE
TO BE CONSTRUED LlBERALLY AND HELD TO LESS STR|NGENT STANDARDS THAN FORN|AL PLEAD|NGS
DRAFTED BY PROFESS|ONAL LAWYERS".
HlsToRY 0F THE cAsE
THE APPL\cANT GABR|EL s\LvA ("APPLchNT") WAS coNvlcTED BY A JuRY oF THE FleT DEGREE
FELoNY OFFENSE 0F AGGRAVATED ROBBERY W\TH A DEADLY v\/EAPON, T0- W\T A KN|FE 0R AN omEcT
uNKNOWN T0 THE GRAND JURY, 0N 5EPTEMBER 27, 2002. lN cAusE N0 08337610 APPLchNT PLED
TRuE T0 THE REPEAT oFFENDER NoTlcE AND THE TRlAL couRT AssEssED PuleHMENT AT TH\RTY-
FlvE vEARS coNFlNEMENT m THE TE)2004 WL 177868 (TEX. APP. FORT
WORTH JAN 29, 2004, PET. REF'D) (NoT DESlGNATED FOR PuBLchTlON).
APPLchNT'S FleT APPLchTlON FoR WRIT 0F HABEAS coRPus WAS DENlED W\THouT
WRHTEN oRDER 0N TR\AL couRTs FlNDlNGs W|THOUT A HEAR|NG 0N NovEMBER 23, 2005. sEE E)<
PARTE levA, No. WR - 62, 930 - 01. c - 4 - 007233 - 0833761 - A (TE)<. cRn\/l. APP. Nov 23, 2005 (WH|TE
cARDy
``APPL``chNT's ALLEGATlONS " " " “ " ' " °"“""‘ ’
APPL|CANT ALLEGES Hls CONFINEMENT ls lLLEGAL BEcAuSE H\s sENTENcE ls lLLEGAL AND
n\/IPROPER APPLchNT's cLAn\/l 0F AN lLLEGAL sENTENcE ls coGleABLE lN A WR|T 0F HABEAS
coRPUS. AN lLLEGAL sENTl-:NCE ls 0NE THAT as NOT AuTHoRleD BY LAW. THEREFORE A sENTENcE
THAT ns ouTleE THE RANGE 0F PuNlSHMENT 0R NOT AuTHORleD BY LAW ls coNs\DERED lLLEGAL.
MleLL \/5. sTATE 119 s.W. 30. 804, 806 (T)<. cRn\/\. APP 2003) E)< PARTE BERK, 922 s.v\/.20.181,182
(TE)<. cRu\/l. APP 1996). THEREFoRE APPLchNT's sENTENcE MUST BE W|Tle THE PuleHMENT
RANGE uNDER \/\/chH HE WAS ADMON:SHED 4ND $ENTENCED. SEE E)< PARTE PARROTr, 396 5. W 30
531- 533 (TEX CRn\/\ APP. 2013) sEE ALso lvanLL vs sTATE 119 s W 30 AT 806..."1N FACTTHERE
HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTH\NG lN TE)187 S.W. 3D. 166 (TX.
. APP. WACO 2006) STATE VS. DUDLEY 223 S.W. BD. 717 (TEX. APP. TYLER 2007) "
GROUND OF ERROR NO. 2
APPL|CANT CONTENDS THERE |S A CONFL|CT BETWEEN THE ORAL PRONOUNCE|\/IENT BY THE
JUDGE AT THE PUN|SHMENT HEAR|NG AND JURY VERD|CT.
APPL|CANT CONTENDS THAT THE TR|AL JUDGE HONORABLE CL|FFORD DAV|S NEVER l\/|ADE AN
EXPRESS DETERI\/l|NAT|ON THAT A DEADLY WEAPON WAS USED OR EXH|B\TED BY APPL|CANT DUR|NG
THE COI\/ll\/||SS|ON OF THE OFFENSE AT BAR, AND TH|S |S CLEAR ON THE FACE OF THE TR|AL RECORD
WHEN THE JUDGE SA|D SO BY H|S’OWN F|ND|NGS OF GU|LT AT THE PUN|SH|V|ENT HEAR|NG ON NOV 22,
2002(SEE COURT REPORTERS VOLUl\/|E 7. PAGES 31-32 ALL) AND EVEN EXPOUNDED AS TO H|S
RAT|ONABLE FOR SA|D PUN|SHl\/|ENT BUT W|THOUT EVER |\/lENT!ON|NG APPL|CANTS USE OR
EXH|B|T|ON OF STATE'S UNFOUNDED, UNSEEN, THEORET|CAL, DE|\/\ONSTRAT|VE, LOCK BLADE KN|FE.
STATE EXH!B|T #37 WH|CH |5 NOT PER SE A DEADLY WEAPON ACCORD|NG TO CONSISTENT TEXAS PENAL
CODES 1.07 (17) (A) (B) OR CASE LAW. THE LAW |ND|CATES |N S|TUAT|ONS SUCH AS APPL|CANTS, WHEN
THE ORALJUDGE|\/|ENT AND WR|TTEN ARE |N CONFL|CT THE ORAL CONTROLS ESPEC|ALLY WHEN
CONS|DER|NG ”JUD|C\AL ERROR". HOWEVER, AJUDGE|\/|ENT [\/|AY BE ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC |F |T
WAS |N FACT "RENDERED" BUT NOT RECORDED AT AN EARL|ER T||\/|E. SEE JONES VS. STATE 795 S.W. 2D.
199 - 200 (TEX. CR|I\/l. APP. 1990) AND ONCE A SENTENCE |5 PRONOUNCED |N OPEN COURT |T
COULDN'T BE |NCREASED BY A LATER WR|TTEN JUDGEMENT WH|CH lS l\/lERELY THE WR|Tl'EN
E|\/lBOD||\/lENT AND DECLARAT|ON OF THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEl\/|ENT". NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS ARE
NOT APPROPR|ATE TO ADDRESS JUD|C|AL ERRORS, ERRORS THAT ARE THE PRODUCT OF JUD|C|AL
REASON|NG OR DETER|\/||NAT|ONS. A NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGEl\/IENT REQU|RES THAT THERE BE PROOF
THAT THE PROPOSED SEN:|'ENCE WAS ACTUALLY RENDERED AT AN EARL|ER Tl|\/lE BUT THAT THE
WR|TTEN JUDGEI\/\ENT FA|LS TO REFLECT lT. SEEI STATE DUDLEY 223 S.W. 30. 717 - 722 (2007) SEE:
ALSO CONCURR|NG OP|N|ON AT 55 S.W. ?>D. 625 74 S.W.3D.166)" A JUDGEN|ENT NUNC PRO TUNC
|\/|AY CORRECT ONLY CLER|CAL ERRORS |N A JUDGEl\/IENT, NOT JUD|C|AL ERRORS OR Ol\/I|SS|ONS;
CLER|CAL ERRORS |\/|AY BE CORRECTED BY ORDER OF NUNC PRO TUNC BUT NOT ONES THAT RESULT
FRO|\/| JUD\C|AL REASON\NG OR DETER|\A|NAT|ON". SI\/||TH VS. STATE 15 S.W. 3D. 294 - 299 A "CLER|CAL
ERROR" COULD BE CORRECTED BY NUNC PRO TUNC |N WH|CH NO JUD|C|AL REASON|NG CONTR!BUTED
a
To lTS ENTRY AND FOR Sol\/IE'REASON WASN'T ENTERED lN THE RECORD AT THE PROPER TlME. NUNC
PRO TuNc ORDERS ARE NOT APPRoPRlATE TO ADDRESS JuchlAL ERRORS" THAT ARE THE PRODUCT OF
JuchlAL REASON|NG OR DETERM|NAT|ONS" SEE:'STATE vS. POSEY 300 S.W. 30. 239 (2009) WHEN A
TR|AL JUDGE ACTS PURSUANT To A FALSE oR MlsTAKEN CONCEPT|ON OR APPLchTlON 0F THE LAW
SUCH ls ”JuDlClAL ERROR" NOT cLERlCAL. _
lN THE :NSTANT CASE AT BAR AND LEGAL THEORET|CAL JUXTAPOslTlON T0 "POLK" AS
ESPOuSED lN``FANNlELvS. sTATE, 73 S.W. 3'0. 557, 559 - 560 (2002). “AN EXPRESS DETERM|NAT|QN BY
THE TR|ER OF FACT THATA DEADLY v\/EAPON v\/As uSED 0R EXH|B\TED DURING THE col\/n\/usslor\l 0F
THE OFFENSE as NECESSARY FOR THE ENTRY OF AND AFF|RMATl\/E F|ND|NG OF THE uSE OF A DEADLY
WEAPoN". POLI< \/S. sTATE, 693 S.W. 20. 391 - 396 (TEX. CRn\/\. APP. 14TH DlsT HOUSTON 1990 PET.
REF'D, (HOLDS TR|AL COURT$ F|ND|NG 06 GulLT DoEs NOT AMOUNT T0 AFF¢RMATNE F|ND\NG THAT
DEFENDANT usED A DEADLY v\/EAPON). HERE lN APPLchNT le\/A's cASE_ WHEN lN THE E\/ENT OF
cONFLlCT BETWEEN A DlSTRlcT cOuRTS ORAL JUDGEMENT AND WR|TTEN ORDER \N CRll\/HNAL
PROSECUT|ONS, THE ORAL JuDGEl\/\ENT cONTROLS AND PRE\/AlLS sEE u.$. vs. F30. 499
(TEX. 2001)
TH|S RULE OF LAW ls ALSO ESPOUSED lN DONO\/AN VS. sTATE 232 s.\A/. 30. 192 (2007)
STATlNG, "THE TR|AL couRT l\/lusT PRONOUNCE A DEFENDANTS SENTENCE 0RALLY1N Hls PRESENCE
BECAUSE THE WR|TTEN JuDGEl\/\ENT ls l\/IERELV THE EMBOD\MENT 0F THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT.
AND 50 WHEN THE WR|TTEN JuDGEl\/\ENT AND ORALJuDGEMENT ARE lN coNFL\cT THE oRAL
PRONOuNcEl\/lENT cONTRoLs". sEE ALSO MoRFlN \/s. sTATE 34 s.vv. 30. 664 (T)<. APP. SAN ANTON¢o
2000) THESE cOURTS HAVE ALL CONS;STENTLV HELD WHEN THERE ls A vARlATlON FRol\/l THE ORAL
PRONouNcEl\/lENT 0F sENTENCE AND THE WRlTrEN l\/lEl\/lORlAleATlON THE oRAL PRONOuNCEl\/lENT
cONTROLs. AND slNcE THE Tll\/IE FOR APPEAL BEG|NS WHEN THE sENTENCE ls n\/lPOSED 0R
SUSPENDED lN OPEN COURT THEN THls ls GBVIOUSLY THE APPEALABLE E\/ENT WHlCH cAN BE
cHALLENGED. THE SENTENCE ls THE lLLEGAL PART 0F THE JUDGEMENT; W|TH THE PRONOUNCEMENT
OF SENTENCE THE cOuRT ESSENTlALLY BREATH§S L\FE lNTO THE sENTENCE AND JUDGEl\/\ENT AND \5
cATALYST 0F WchH ENABLES ExEcuTcON 0F THE JuDGEl\/\ENT. sTOKES VS. sTATE 688 S.W. 20. 539_
GROUND OF ERROR NO.3
APPL|CANT ASSERTS HE |S ACTUALLY |NNOCENT OF THE DEADLY WE/-\PON F|ND|NG AND TDCJ
AND THE TR|AL COURT ARE |N ERROR |N REQU|R|NG APPL|CANT TO SERVE ONE HALF OF H|S SENTENCE
BEFORE BECOI\/llNG EL|G\BLE FOR PAROLE.
APPL|CANT CONTENDS THAT THE OFF|CIALS AT TDCJ AND THE TR|AL COURT OFF|C|ALS ARE |N
ERROR |N REQU|R|NG S|LVA TO HAVE TO SERVE ONE HALF OF H|_S SENTENCE BEFORE HE |S EL|G|BLE
FORE PAROL_E. APPL|CANT FEELS HE HAS SHOWN SUFF|C|ENT4 FACTS TO SUPPORT PR|I\/lA FAC|E CLA||\/|
OF ACTUAL |NNOCENCE OF THE DEADLY WEAPON F|ND|NG |N H|S ORAL PRONOUNCEI\/IENT |N OPEN
COURT. (SEE COURT REPORTERS RECORD VOLUI\/|E 7. Pg$. 31-32 ALL). THE COURT lN EX PARTE BROOKS
219 S.W. 3D. 396 (TEX. CRH\/l. APP. 2007) HELD: |N FOOTNOTE TWO. THE \ND|CT|\/IENT ALLEGED THAT
BROOKS USED A DEADLY WEAPON. THE JURY FOUND Hl|\/l NOT GU|LTY OF THE DEADLY WEAPON
F|ND|NG FOOT NOTE 7. SEE NIURRY VS. CARR|ER 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S. Ct. 2639 91 L.Ed 2D. 397
(1986). THE CARR|ER STANDARD REQU|RES THE HABEAS PET|T|ONER SHOW THAT A CONST|TUT|ONAL
V|OLAT|ON HAS RESULTED |N THE CONV|CT|ON OF ONE WHO |S ACTUA_LLY |NNOCENT TO ESTABL|SH
THE REQU|S|TE PROBAB|L|TY, THE PET|T|ONER |\/IUST SHOW THAT |T |S |\/IORE L|KELY THAN NOT THAT
NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD'VE CONV|CTED Hl|\/l |N L|GHT OF THE NEW E\/|DENCE. SCHLUP 513 U.S.
AT 327, 115 S.Ct 851 SAWYER VS. WH|TLY, 505 U.S. 333, 112 5 Ct. 2514 120 L. ED. 2D. 269 (1992).
(HOLD|NG THAT A HABEAS PET|T|ONER |\/lUSH SHOW BY CLEAR AND CONV|NC|NG EV|DENCE, THAT BUT
FOR A CONST|TUT\ONAL V|OLAT|ON, NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD HAVE THE PET|T|ON EL|G|BLE FOR
cERTlFchTE 0F sER\/lcE
l, cERTlFY THAT A TRUE AND cORREcT cOPY 06 THE FOREGO|NG HAS BEEN sER\/ED 0N THE
STAT'S DlsTRlcT AUORNEY umw DAY OF // 20 /’F_BY PLAC|NG SAME \N
THE us MA\L PosTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED As FOLLOWS;
TOZ C|NDY DUTRA
POST CONV|CT|ON LEGAL SECRETARY
TARRANT COUNTY D|STR|CT CLERK OFF|CE
a
THE DEATH PENALY). APPL|CANT ASSERTS HE IS ACTUALL_Y |NNOCENT OF THE DEADLY WEAPON
F|ND|NG ENHANCEl\/|ENT, THAT THE TR|AL OFF|C|ALS ARE HOLD|NG AGA|NST APPL|CANT.
PRAYER FOR REL|EF
WHEREFORE, APPL"chNT PRAY$ THls HoNoRABLE couRT ADDRESS THE ME'R\TS 0F THE cLA\l\/\s
AND lssuEs, AND 0RDER THAT THE TR|ALCOURT'S JuDGEl\/\ENT BE REFORMED T0 REFLECT THE ORAL
PRONOUNCEMENT As lN THE TR|AL couRT RECORD AND APPO\NT couNsEL FOR THE APPLlCANT.
RESPECTFULLY SUB|\/l|TTEDI
GABR|EL S|LVA #1137714
|\/l. W. |\/||CHAEL UN|T "
2664 F|\/l. 2054
M TENN. coLoNv, Tx 75886
DoNETHlSQMDAY 0F //_- 2015
|N|\/|ATE DECLARAT|ON
|, GABR|EL S|LVA, #1137714 AND |Nl\/|ATE |N THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CR|I\/|lNAL JUST|CE-
CORRECT|ONAL D\VlS|ON AT THE |\/|. W. |\/l|CHAEL UN|T LOCATED |N ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 2664
F|\/|. 2054 TENN. COLONY, TEXAS 75886 DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THE ABOVE AND
FOREGO|NG |S TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF l\/IY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE PERSUAN_T TO TX. C|V.
P. RE|\/|. CODE BZ. 001-132-003
E)