RECEIVED |N
R. h d T l y @UWCFCR!M|NALAFPM
N;c §§600;¥ Or t - Au@ 1§ §m§
Telford Unit
899 a e w 98 b
3 St t H y 75570 ABQFRUSH,@F@W€
New Boston¢ Tx
August 14, 2015
Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, Clerk of Court
P.O. Box 12308 .
Austin/ Tx 78711-2308
Re: No.,WR-4l,683-02, Ex parte Richard Owen Taylor
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed,please kindly find my Objections to be filed with
the papers in this case. The trial court clerk has Submitted the
record to this court. “
With kindest regards, I am
Very truly yours
chard Owen”Taylor
Pro se Applicant
Encl.
`cc: 'Andrea Jacobs
u\,w
He frequently attends AA/NA and many other support groups. He has
no record of violent offenses in his now 18 years of incarceration.
He has been without disciplinary, minor or major, for several years,
while he has maintained the highest level of class earning status
under his circumstances. He has asuitable residence and gainful
34. See Exhibit D, affidavit of Richard Owen Taylor .
Page 15
,._A:\|
employment upon his release. This is the type of demonstrated
maturity and rehabilitation the Supreme_Court spoke about in Graham
and Miller.35
The Parole Board is violating Taylor's rights under the 8th
Amendment by refusing to grant him parole after he has demonstrated
maturity and rehabilitation. The Parole Board's most recent denial
occurred on May 27, 2015, which demonstrates it denied Taylor because
of the nature of the offense. The Supreme Court did not require
vstates to make parole available to juvenile offenders, while allowing
`the states to deny the same juvenile offender parole indefinitely.
The Court should therefore consider the merits in Ground Three.
Conclusion
The four questions presented should be answered in a straight-
*Lforward fashion:
Fm~` "* 'No, Taylor could not have formulated the argument that
trial counsel was ineffective during the 25 year plea
negotiation and consideration because, at the time of
the initial filing, the United States Supreme Court
had not yet considered the plea bargaining stage as
"critical" requiring the right to counsel. And/ no, this
issue has not been previously litigated because it was
never presented to the court.
* Yes, the mitigating factors recognized in Graham and Miller
were unavailable to Taylor and the courts when Taylor filed
his initial application. Taylor could not have formulated
his argument in Ground Two.` 4 ,
* Yes, Taylor's application contains sufficient specificj
facts establishing that the legal or factual basis for
Ground Two was unavailable at the time he filed his
initial application.
v35. See 130 S.Ct. 2011 and 132 S.Ct. 2455.
Page 16_
* Yes1 the United States Supreme Court holdings in Graham
.and Miller create a liberty interest in parole for juvenile
offenders. v
~Taylor asks the Court to remand this case to the trial court
for consideration of the merits. He further asks the Court to order
the below court to appoint counsel and an expert so that the claims
may be fully developed and a sufficient record presented to this
Court for consideration.
Taylor asks the Court to direct the Texas Board of Pardons
and Paroles to grant him release on parole.
Taylor prays for general relief.
Respectfully submitted1
/Z-
i§hard Owen T
TDCJ# 8160021 Telford
3899 State Hwy 98
New Boston1 Tx 75570
Pro se Applicant
Certificate of Service
I certify that a true copy of this objection was served on
the District Attorney's Office by placing the same in the prison
mailing system properly posted and addressed to Andrea Jacobs1
Assistant District Attorney, 401 W. Belknap1 Ft. Worthr Texas1
76196 on August 141 2015.
/Kichard Owen Ta;;;;;z”_
Page 17