Huffmaster, Troy

'It ••• u. •

TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER
TDCJ-CID# 1537487
WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT
9601 SPUR 591
AMARILLO, TEXAS 79107

HONORABLE CLERK
ABEL ACOSTA
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITAL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS
78711 RECEIVED~~
COURT OF CRIII/iiNAL APPEALS
RE; FILING OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAR 12 2015

Dear Honorable Clerk:

Please find enclosed my ''PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" for

presentation to the Honorable Justices for consideration.

There are no copy-services available in TDCJ-CID so I am unable

to make any additional copies or serve the District Court (Respon-

dent) with a copy of this Petition. If additional copies are re-

quired would you please make them.

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

~~l:Ltt-~-·
3--8 -(~
Troy Eugene Huffmaster

Pro Se Representation
,. . ..
APP. NO. ________________

IN THE

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

*************

IN RE TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER,

PETITIONER/RELATOR.

*************

TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER, § IN THE 214TH JUDICIAL
TDCJ-CID#l537487, §
RELATOR, §
§
vs. §
§
§ DISTRICT COURT OF
§
NUECES COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE, §
JOSE LONGORIA, §
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, §
RESPONDENT. § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

*****************************************************************

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

*****************************************************************

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT·OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, the petitioner, pro se,

and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of

Mandamus and order the Honorable Jose Longoria, in his official

capacity as the District Judge of the 2l4th Judicial District of

Nueces County, Texas, to either grant or deny Petitioner's "MOTION

TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT."
 Page 2.

I.

JURISDICTION STATEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked p~rsuant to Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure, Article 4.04, Sections·! and 2, or whatever

applicable Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, statute or rule neces-

sary to invoke· jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner/Relator, re-

quests that this Court liberally construe his pleading in light of

Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On May 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals of the Thirteenth

District of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, modified Petitioner's

Judgment by stating the following:

"The written judgment recites that the underlying offense,

escape, is a second-degree felony. However, Huffmaster was indicted

for third-degree felony escape, and the jury found him guilty of

that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed

to show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony

escape from a secure correctional facility. We agree and therefore

modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was convicted of third-

degree felony escape from a secure correctional facility." (See

Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion at 19 attached as EXHIBIT A).

(Attached to this Petition).

2. On approximately November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus with the 214th Judicial Dis-

trict Court of Nueces County, Texas.
...
Page 3.

3. On approximately December 3, 2013, Petitioner received a

copy of the State's Answer. Included within the State's Answer was

a copy of Petitioner's Judgment which illustrated the fact that

the Co~rt of Appeals modification of Judgment was never complied

with because the Judgment states: Offense for which Defendant Con-

victed: ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY. Degree of Offense: 2ND DEGREE FELONY.

(See Judgment attached as EXHIBIT B). (Attached to this Petition).

4. On approximately July of 2014, Petitioner filed a "MOTION

TO ENFORCE COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT," with the

Court of Appeals.

-----5 . On approxi-m-ate 1 y Au~-e-f--.2-Q-1-4-,-t--R-e-C-0-l:H"-t--G f App~~------~

denied Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Court of Appeals Modification

of Judgment.

6. On approximately August of 2014, the Court of Appeals

denied Petitioner's pro se Motion to Respond to th~ State's Answer.

(The State partly stated that Petitioner's Motion was not properly

in front'of the Court cited it was not a Writ of Mandamus).

7. On approxiamtely September of 2014, the Court of Appeals

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, Petitioner's pro se Motion for

Reconsideration.

8. On approximately October 2nd, 2014, Petitioner filed with

the 2l4th Judicial District Court a motion titled: "MOTION TO COM-

PLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATTON OF JUDGMENT." (Attached to

this Petition).

9. On approximately December 23rd, 2014, Petitioner filed with

the 214th Judicial District Court a motion titled: "MOTION TO COMPEL
...
Page 4.

COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT."

10. On approximately January 28, 2015, Petitioner filed with

the 214th Judicial Court a motion titled: PETITIONER'S SECQND MOTION

TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF

APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT."

III.

ARGUMENTS: REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
A. MANDAMUS SHOULD ISSUE BECAUSE PETITIONER
HAS NO OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY

RELATOR

Troy Eugene Huffmaster, TDCJ-CID# 1537487 is an offender incar-

cerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is appear-

ing pro se, who can be locted at the William Clements Unit, 9601

Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas 79107.

Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other adequate

remedy at law. The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not

discretionary in nature.

RESPONDENT

Respondent, Jose Longoria, 1n his official capacity as the District

Judge of Nueces County, Texas has a ministerial duty to rule on

Motions properly filed 'and before the Court. Consideration of a

motion properly filed before a trial court is ministerial. See

White v Roper, 640 S.W.2d 586,594-596 (Tex.Crim.App.l982).

B. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FAILED TO PERFORM HIS MINISTERIAL
DUTY AND RULE ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS MANDATE TO MODIFY PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT
...
Page 5.

Fundamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity

to be heard. Creel v District Attorney for Medina County, 818 S.W.

2d 45, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.l99l). Thu~, a district court may be com-

pelled via mandamus to consider and rule on a pending mo~ion pre-

sented to the court. See State ex rel. Curry v Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125,

128 (Tex~Crim.App.l987); Cf., In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250 (Tex.

App.-Amarillo 2000).

The Court of Appeals issued a mandate in this case to modify

Petitioner's Judgment to show a conviction for a third-degree felony

escape rather than a second-degree felony escape causing bodily

injury. The trial court failed to c?mply with the Court of Appeals

mandate. A "Mandate'' is the official notice of the action of the

appellate court directed to the court below, advising it of the

action of the appellate court and directing it to have its judgment

duly recognized, obeyed, and executed." See Saudi v Brieven, 176

S.W.3d 108 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2004). The mandate has

also been described as "a command of the court, which the court is

authorized to give and which must be obeyed.'' See Williams v State,

899 S.W.2d 13, 15 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2004).

To date, Petitioner/Relator has received no response from the

Respondent regarding Petitioner's/Relator's above stated Motion's

properly before the court. As is clear from Petitioner's/Relator's

Motions; Petitioner/Relator has repeatedly put Respondent on notice

that Petitioner/Relator seeks a ruling on the Motions properly

filed with said court.

In contrast to Petitioner's /Relator's efforts, Respondent has
 Page 6.

wholly failed to perform its ministerial duty, is acting in bad

faith, and has also failed to afford Petitioner/Relator the pro-

fessional and common courtesy of a ruling on said Motion's despite

Petitioner's/Relator's diligent efforts to have the court obey the

Court of Appeals mandate which has caused Petitioner severe pre-

judice in the eyes of the unit classification department and the

Amarillo Parole Board members.

C. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

The Respondent has failed in its ministerial duty to rule on

Petitioner's/Relator's pending Motions which is a violation of due

process. This Court has jurisdiction p~rsuant to Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure, Article 4.04, Sections 1 and 2.

D. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD BE ISSUED

A "writ of mandamus is an order directing a public official or

public body to perform a duty exacted by law." United States v Den-

son, 603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.l979). It "is an extraordinary

remedy for extraordinary causes." In re Corrugated Container Anti-

trust Litig. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958, 961-62 (5th Cir.l980). To

obtain the writ, the petitioner must show "that no other adequate

means .exist to attain the requested relief and that his right to

issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable." In re Willy, 831

F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.l987). The issuance of the writ is within

the Court's discretion. Densen, 603 F.2d at 1146.

Petitioner/Relator, incorporates herein by reference, the legal

arguments set forth in his MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT; MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING
 Page 7.

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT;

PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT;

as if fully printed herein to support the issuance of a Writ of

Mandamus.

WHEREFORE, based on the above, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, urges

this Honorable Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the

214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, to issue a

ruling either granting or denying his Motion To Comply With Court

of Appeals Modification Of Judgment.
f":}-~
Respectfully submitted on this~day of(Y\~ I 2015.

-Tii_;~ Hv~P A~-
'-
Troy Eugene Huffmaster

INMATE DECLARATION

I, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, TDCJ-CID# 1537487, being presently
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, declare
under the penalty of perjury that the facts and allegations in the
Petition for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct.

·1(2o11-LSP~
Troy Eugene Huffmaster
Petitioner/relator
 ATTACHED EXHIBITS

#l. ORIGINAL MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION
OF JUDGMENT.

#2. MOTION TO COMPEL.

#3. PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL.
 TROY HUFFMASTER
TDCJ-CID# 1537487
WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT
9601 SPUR 591
AMARILLO, TEXAS
79107

PATSY PEREZ, HONORABLE CLERK
DISTRICT COURT/COUNTY COURTS OF LAW
P.O. BOX 2987
901 LEOPARD STREET
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
78403

RE: FILING OF "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION
OF JUDGMENT" CAUSE NO. 08-CR-2271-F

Dear Honorable Clerk:

Please find enclosed for presentation to the Honorable Judge

Jose Longoria my, "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFI-·

CATION OF JUDGMENT."
J
There are no ~opy services available in TDCJ-CID so I am unable

to serve a copy of this Motion to the Nueces County District Attor-

ney's D££ice if ~equired. Wovld yg~ pleft~e rn~ke any neeaed copies.

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this very

important matter.

Sincerely yours,
-&ofFJ~~---------~-------------~-------
Troy Huffmaster
Pro Se representation
 Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§

TROY HUFFMASTER § 214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

*****************************************************************

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH

COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

*****************************************************************

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE LONGORIA:

COMES NOW, Troy Huffmaster, Petitioner, pro se, and respect-

fully moves this Court to coffiply with the Court of Appeals Modi-

f i cat i on o f J u d g men t . '!' h e Pet i t i one r 1-li ll s h o '\·! t h i s Honor a b 1 e

Court as follows:

1. On May 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals modified Petitioner's

Judgment by stating the following:

"The written judgment recites that the underlying offense, es-

cape I is a secona aegree felony. However I HTITfma-.st:er was -i-rm-icted

for third-degree felony escape, and the jury found him guilty of

that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed

to show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony
- --·-·-------~------ ·----

modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was convicted of third-

degree felony escape from a secure correctional facility." (See

Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion at 19 attached as EXHIBIT A).
 Page 2.

2. On approximately November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court.

3. On approximately December 3, 2013, Petitioner received a

copy of the State's Answer. Included within the State's Answer

was a copy of this Court's Judgment which illustrates that the

~curt of Appeals modification was never complied with because the

judgment states: Offense for which Defendant Convicted: ESCAPE,

BODILY INJURY. Degree of Offense: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. (See Judgment

attached as EXHIBIT B).

REQUESTED RELIEF

Petitioner's request is really very simple. The Court of Appeals

modified this Petitioner's Judgment to reflect a third-degree

felony escape, and, executed a Mandate to that effect. A "Mandate"

is the official notice of the action of the appellate court,

dir.ec.tin.g tbi.s CQ.ub"t, q.(lvising it of the a,c;tioi1 of the appellate

court and directing it to have its judgment duly recognized, obeyed,

and executed. See e.g., Saudi v Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108 (Tex.App.-

Houston [lst Dist] 2004).

Therefore, when Petitioner received a copy of the Judgment in

this case during the habeas corpus proceeaings, that Jli.Clgmenf

should have reflected the Court of Appeals modification that Peti-

tioner was convicted of a third-degree felony escape. Instead,

Petitioner has been unduly prejudiced in the eyes of the Amarillo

department, because they are all under the "incorrect" belief that

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree felony escape causing

bodily injury, and their files reflect the same.
 Page 3.

This is easily demonstrated by the JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY

JURY attached as EXHI-BIT 11
B. 11
This Judgment "should" state: Offense

for which Defendant convicted: THIRD-DEGREE ESCAPE instead of what

EXHIBIT 11
B" states; ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY. Under Degree of Offense

it should state: THIRD-DEGREE FELONY instead of: 2ND DEGREE FELONY.

Therefore, this Honorable Court has a ministerial duty to com-

ply with the Court of Appeals Mandate ordering a modification of

Petitioner's Judgment to reflect that Petitioner was convicted of
\

a third-degree felony escape and not a second-degree felony escape

causing bodily injury.

Therefore, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court to send

reformed copies of the JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY to the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutional Divisions

and the Amarillo Parole Board reflecting that Petitioner was con-

victed of third-degree felony·escape and not second-degree felony

escape causing bodily injury.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Honorable
Court will take immediate action and reform the Judgment of Con-
viction to reflect that Petitioner was convicted of a third-degree
felony escape rather than second-degree felony escape causing bodily
injury and immediately send copies of the reformed Judgment to TDCJ-
CID and the Amarillo Parole Board.

Respectfully submitted,

~-R~Y HJ~r~-·
Troy Buffmaster
Pro Se Representation
 Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

TROY HUFFMASTER § 214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TDCJ-CIDi 1537487 § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

********************

ORDER

********************

On this day was heard the foregoing, "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH

COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT,"and the same is hereby:

GRANTED/DENIED

The Court hereby orders the district clerk to send a copy of

the reformed JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY to the following:

Texas Department of Criminal Justice-
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles
8610 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78757

Troy Eugene Huffmaster
TDCJ-CID# 1537487
William Clements Uriit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, Texas 79107

William P. Clements Unit
Classification Department
9601 Spur 591
---Am a r iTlcs-;--T"""'e-::x'"""'a,..,s.,-79T07

IT IS SO ORDERED

SIGNED ON I 2014.
--------------------------------

Honorable Jose Longoria
Judge Presiding
 STATE'S
EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT
c_

MANDATE

TC1 THE 214th District Court OF Nueces COUI\ITY, GREETII'>JGS

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, or1 the 28th day of May, 2fJOSJ,
the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

TROY HUFFMASTER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-08-00599-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 08-CR-2271-F)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:
MINUTES
Vol 20/page 188

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, from a judgment
signed October 14, 2008. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rose Vela. Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

THIS CAUSE vv·a.s s:..:!J:-nitted to the Cuuil or. ~.~~!' 27, 2008. on the record and briefs.
These having been examined and fully considered, it is tQe opinior1 of the Co:.::-! th2!'
there was some error in the judgment of the court below, and said judgment is hereby
Tli10DIFIED AND, ,t.~,S-tl.il0uiriED.. J:.F:=-!P.M!::D EJgninst aopelianl, TROY HUFFM/\STE:R.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the
Thirteenth District, of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and
executed. ·

WfTNESS, the Han. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, wtfnfnesE:fa-1-th-erenf-------
affixed, at the City of Corpus Christi/Edinburg, Texas, this the 14th day of August, 2009.
 EXHIBIT A

To preserve error in admitting evidence, a party must make a proper
objection and get a ruling on that objection. In addition, a party must object
each time the inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection.
An error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence
comes in elsewhere without objection.

Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim: App. 2003) (footnotes omitted); see Leday

v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (explaining that "[o)ur rule ... is that

overruling an objection to evidence will not result in reversal when other such evidence was

received without objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling,"); Willis v. State,

785 S.W .2d 378, 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (noting that admission of inadmissible
(

evidence is rendered harmless if the same or similar evidence is introduced without

· objection elsewhere during trial).

Here, defense counsel did not obtain a running objection. Therefore, error, if any,

in the prosecutor's opening argurneni was cureci !Jecause the same or sirniiar evidence

came in elsewhere without objection. See Willis, 785 S.W.2d at 383. Issue three is

overruled.

Ill. Modification of Judgment

An appellate court has the power to correct a trial court's written judgment if the

appellate court has the necessary information to do so. Cobb v. State, 95 S.W.3d 664,

668 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2-002, no pet.)-:-Tfiis power aoes notaepena upon a

party's calling the error to the court's attention or raising the issue on appeal. See French

v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (adopting reasoning of Asberry v.

. . .. ____ .~State.,_8_t3_S.W_.2d_526,53_L(Iex._App_.=Da llas_19_9j_,_p_eJ._Le.f'..d)_(kQn cl udi n_g_tbQLr;~_uth qrity_ ___ _____ _______ _ __ ___
··-- - -·· - ----- ------- --- ------ --------~-- --·-------- -- -- --- - - - -------- -------- ------------------ ------------------- -------- ···-----~----·- ··---

to reform incorrect judgment "is not dependent upon a request by either party")).

18
 EXHIBI'J' l\.

The written judgment recites that the underlying offense, escape, is a second-

d~gree felony. However, Huffmaster was indicted for third-degree felony escape, and the

jury. found him guilty of that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed
---.....

to. show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony escape from a secure

. correctional facility. We agree and therefore modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was

convicted of third-degree felony escape from a secure correctional facility.

IV. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is modified and, as modified, we affirm the judgment.

ROSE VELA
Justice

Do not publish.
R. ll.po p e7.2(b).
T:::~~.

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 28th day of May, 2009.

19
 EXHIBIT B

CASE No. 08 CR 2271 F
JNCTI>EJ\"1' N (j ./TRl\': f1089GGOS lX

THE STATE 0F TEXAS § lN THE ZJ4TH DISTRICT
§
v. § COURT
§
TROY HUFFM..I\STER § NUECES COUJ\TTY, TEXA..S
§
.STATE ID ).,jO_: TXU3:::782 i.l §

JUDGMENT OF CONVJCTION BY JURY
Date Judgment
,JudgE: Presiding: HuN. JOSE LONGORIA Entered:
10/7/2008
Attorney for
P.ttorney for State: ANGELICA HERNANDEZ Defendant:
ROBERT FL\~N
Offen.&e for which Defendant Convicted: ----~----=-----=------------------

ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY
Charging Instrument: Statute for Offense:
INDICTMBNT 38.06 Penal Code
Date of Offense:
517/2008
Degree of Offense: Plea to Offense:
2ND DEGREE FEL01~ NOT GUILTY
·verdict of Jurv: Finding~ on Deadly Weapon:
GUILTY N/A
Plea to znd Enhancemenifrlabitual
Paragraph: TRUE Paragraph: TRU~
Findings on 1"' Enhancement Findings on zed
?.:::::-zg-:-a.ph: 'J'RTJE Enbancement!Habitual Paragraph: TRUE

10/7/2008 1077/2008
Punishment and Place
of Confinement:
TWENTY-FIVE (25) i'Eiill.S INSTITUTIONAL DIVISI9N, TDCJ
THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
0 SENTENCE oF coNFih"EMEh"T susPENDED, DEFENDANT PLACED or-; coMMUNITY suPERVISJOr-; FOR N/A.
Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Pavabie to:
. s;~ko.to $ -l? - 0 VICTIM (see beiow) 0 AGENCY/AGE!'."T (see below)
Se:1: Orrender Registration f~equirements do noi a.ppiy to th.: DefenC..u.nt. TEX. CODE Cilllvi. PROC::. chapter 52.
The age of the vic;;im at the time of the offense was N/A.
If Defendan: i~ to s!?rve sentence in TDCJ enter incarceratiOn oeriods in cnronolo ical orcier.

rr·
Frorn'l(.Jogto 10/1/og From to From to
L J.liJB
From t<• From to From to
Creci.Ited.:
lfDef!mdan: i!c' t.c• serve sentence in counw jail or is given credit toward fme and co<;n·. enter dav~ credited below.
DAYS NOTES:
______ .o\ILJl~r:tine!!.Li!'for~l!_~ip_n, name• nncl HB•e•oment6 indicated above nre incorporated into the language of tb• judgment· below O)' reference ..
-- ---- ---Th~-;;--~~-lu:;;-;;-wa5-calfecnor trial in N u ecesCouzn:y:-Texas~-TbrS wt'e-a ppeared-by ·her -Distr!ct:_-:-:-.1\:norriey-.--==-===--.::.. _______.:::-=.-=::::::-..::==.:
Counf