COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Dear Abel Acosta,
March 6, 2015
(CCA), Clerk,
RE: EX PARTE ARTHUR DAVID LOWS, WR-25,679-22; CAUSE No.659154-B
Please find enclos~d Applicant's Original Application for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, in your official records-wR-25,679-22. referred
to and supplying a ~opy here-with. Being Applicant is unable to
make ciDpies. Being incarcerated (TDCJ-ID), Texas Department of
Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, at the Hughes Unit. NO
offender{s), are perm~t~d to make copies. nor is there any copy
unit supplied for Offender(s) use. Please filed the same and pre-
sent to the Court th~ !Motion For Reconsideration', in reference to
the above Writ Numb~r and Cause Number. Being this Motion and Re~
cords to the attention of the H~norable Justic~ of the Court's
attention. And Please, up-date me on any actions taken.
I, truly appreci~te your consideration ... THANK YOU ... May GOD
Bless Yuo, Yuor Family and Friends.
Sincerely
Wzi!zw1 d&J.Jt
ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750
HUGHES UNIT.
RT. 2. BOX 4400.
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597
REC!E~VED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
~AR 09 2015
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
WR-25,679-22; CAUSE No.659154-B
EX PARTE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE § IN.THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT
Applicant,
v. § OF
THE STATE: OF TEXAS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Representative(s),
ASSISTANT. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
[Sharon Y. Chu], Respondant. §
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TO TBE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:~
NOW COMES, Arthur D·avid Lowe, [J:leteinafter referred to as Appli-
cant}, and respectfully, submits this •Motion For Reconsideration'.
And will show the following:
[APPLICANT IS ILLEGALLY RESTRAINE~]
Applicant was convicted by a jury, On October 25, 1993, and Sen~'
·tenced October 28, 1993. To [LIFE]--In the Texas Department of Crim-
inal Justice-Institutional Diyision (TDCJ-ID), Formerly the Texas De-
partment Of Corrections.
I
On January 19, 1995, the First Court of Appeals affirmed Applic-
ant's appeal. Lowe v. State, 01-93-0~985-CR, 1995 WL 19052 (Tex. App~-
Houston [lst. Dist.] Jan. 19* 1995»(mem. Op., not designated for pub-
lication).
1
.II
Applicant filed an initial Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging the convictton. Cause No.659154-A.the trial Court On the
'State's Original Answer and Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Orders.'-Adopted the State's Assistant District Attorney's
Proposed Findings and Order~ by signing the [same]. That effective~.
iy [DISPOSED] -ALL Appl'icant 's cl~aims [WITHOUT CONSIDERATION], and
ALL the 'Motions' filed with the initial Application for Writ of Ha-
beas Corpus; presented with supported certified records and affida~
vits.
JL[][
Pursuant to Texas Code Criminal Procedure Ann. article 11.07 (Ver-
non Supp. 1993 & 201-3). The Harris County, District Clerk, as Ordered
by and through the State's Assistant District Attorney [Sharon Y. Chu]
I
in accordence with Section 3(c), forwarded limited records, filed in
the Habeas Corpus proceeding.
IV
The Texas Suprem~ Court of Criminal Appeals, On ['December 18, 2013]
[DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER] Applicant's initial Ap~lication for
Writ of H~beas Corpus.
v
After the final disposition of Applicant's First Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [December 18, 2013].
Applicant came in knowledge that the trial Court was not afforded
2
to consider Applicant's ~s~parate Memorandum' with attached certifi-
ed records and affidavits, and Mot~ohs', in support of his claims.
Theref6re,. Applicant refiled the 'Motion Reformation Aggravated
kidnapping Judgment.' T~~ records reflect that, the trial Court rece~
ived, the 'Motion' On April 14, 2014, and On [April 21, 2014], the
trial Court [GRANTED], Applicant's 'Motion', and made Orders ·'NUNC
PRO TUNC'~\~earing and further Orders the Correction of Applicant's
'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. Conducting such hearing ALL in Applicant's
[ABSENCE]. Actions taken in Violation of Statutory provision. See
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon Supp. 20l~)[Sen-
tence sh~ll be pronounced in the Defendant's Presence].
VI
The trial Court· actionsiri:n [GRANTING], Applicant's 'Motion' was
to conform with the'Jury's Actual Verdict'to the 'Special Issue' pur-
suant to T~X.PENAL CODE ANN. §20~04(b)(Vernon 1993); See also Williams
V. State, 851 S.W. 2d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)(AS A MATTERQF LAW].
VII
In the instant case, the records unequivocally reflect the trial
Court's Order Correction of Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' from
)
the egregious entry in the Original 'Judgment and Sentence' of [Pir~t
Degree Aggravated kidnapp;i·ng Judgment] the trial Court made the law-
ful Correction to Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AD SENTENCE'--Reduced the Off-
ense to [SECOND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING]--The records NOW being
Corrected by the trial Court reflect 'SECGND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPP:::--·
3
lNG RELEASE VICTIM IN .A SAFE PLACE]: See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04{b)
(Vernon 1993); See also TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.33 [Second Degree Pun--
ishment]. Compared to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.32 [First Degree Punish-
ment].
The trial Court Ordered the Correction of Applicant 'JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE" the Orders Reduced the Offense to"Second Degree Aggravated
Kidnapping'. However, Applicant remain under Sentence [LIFE].
VIII
The trial'Court ERRED in signing--Adopted the State's Original Ans-
'
wer and Proposed Finding of F~cts and Concl~sions of. Law and Order. T~
[DISMISS]--Applicant's Applicati6n for Writ of Habeas Corpus as none-
compliance with Article 11.07, §4.
Whereas, the records.reflect and ~pplicant Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, aTht~ough being a Second Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, the trial Court [GRANTED] Applicant 'Motion• On [April 21, 2014]
Corrected Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' Reduced the Offense from
lst Degree Aggravated Kidnapping [TO] 2nd Degree Aggravated Kidnapping.
The [GRANTING] of Applicant's 'Motion• and Correction of records in
Reduced Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE" occurred [AFTER]--the final
[DISPOSITION] of the initial Application On [December 18, 2013]. There-
fore, the ~urrent claim was not and could not have been presented in
the initial Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, because the fact-
ual and legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date dispos-
ition of Applicant First Application [DENID]--December 18, 2013. The
current claim became an issue for legal basis On April 21, 2014. In
4
addressing wh~ther the instant Application is barred as a 'Subse-
quent Application' Under Section 4, Or whether if it falls within
an exception, 6f:.Section, 4(a)(l), provides;
(a) 'If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, if fil-
~· ed after final disposition of an initial application, challeng-
ing the same conviction; a court may not consider the merits of
or grant relief based on the subsequent application; 'unless
thE); apfi,.iib~tibri'' c6i.tiiifi's·~ sti£tit'i~rit ;_facts establishing that;
(1) 'the current claim and issue have not and could not have
been presented previously in an original application or a pre-
viously considered application under this Article because the
"factual or legal basis for the:.cliiim was unavailable on, the
date the applicant filed the previous application[.]
(c)'for the purpose of subsection (a)(l), a factual basis of a
Claim is unavailable on or about a date described by subsection
(a)(l) the f~ttual basis was rtot asertainable through the exer~'
cise of re~sonable diligence on or before the date.
TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §4(a)(l), Thu$ the court's are
barred from considering the merits of an applicant's application, 'Un-
less the facts:givill'llg rise to the claim, made in the instant Applica-
tion could not hawe been presented in the initial Application because
they were "not asertainable through the exercise of reasonable dili-
gence on or before the date of the initial Application.•
In the instant AppJication for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records
5
unequivocally reflect, and' as Applicant has demoristrated above and
the referred to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.shows that the
current claim was not and could not have been presented in the initi-
al Application for Writ of H~beas Corpus. {DENIED][DECEMBER 18, 2013]~
The Claims being raised in the instant Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus--WR-25,679-22, Cause No.659154-B. was not available for any
factual or legal basis to be raised for consideration until [APRIL
21, 2014].
6
..
make Orders to comply with Statutory provision. See Tex.Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon 2014)[the Sentence shall be Pro-
nouced in the Defendant's Presence].
***IJ;iJ,this case [The Sentence has NOT been Pronouced i1111 ([Applicant's])
Presence].
Applicant is entitle to Due Process Rights and Due Course of Law,
as well as a Constitutional Right to have the Sentence in which He
is to serve Pronuonced in His Presence.
ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE
The trial Court's Ordered 'NUNC PRO TUNC' 'CORRECTION' of Applicant's
'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. In Applicant's [ABSENCE]. Applicant have a Due
Process Right to have the Sentence Orally Pronounced in His Presence.
See Marshall v. State, 860 s.w. 2d 142 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet);
Ex parte Madding, 70 s.w. 3d 131 (Tex. Cri~. App. 2002)~Taylor V. State,
131 s.w. 3d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(citing Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 42.03, §I(a)(Vernoll1l 2006).
The trial Court's Orders 'NUNC PRO TUNC' hearing reflects that the
trial Court presiding Judge Corrected Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SEN-
TENCE'. Pursuant to TEX.P.EJNIAL CODE ANNr.;_§20 .• 04.(bi)(Vernon Supp. 1993 §
2014). See also Hughes V. State, 493 S.w.· 2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. A:pp.
1973)("A judgment may be reformed so as to show the offense of which
the accused was found guilty by the court or Jury) s:ee 9-lso Ex Parte
Philip, 176 S.W._.3d 818 (Tex.- Crim. App. 2005)["The expectation of
having the oral prouncement match the written judgment applies to
sentencing issues, as the term of confinement assessed and whether
7
multiple sentence would be s~rved concurrently"). It is ERROR for
the trial Court to enter Orders 'NUNC PRO TNC' hearing Correction
of Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' without affording Applicant
an opporunity to be at the hearing, sentencing, represented by Counsel
in avvord to Applicant's 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.-Amerillo, 1997)
("the appellant court, held that, when valid judgment of conviction
for first degree felony offense was not nunc pro tunc judgment, but
merely a correction made during th~ term time, was ho requirement
for netic~, hearing and proof in defendant's presence"). Whereas, In
Vallez V. S'tate, 21 s.w. 3d 778 (Tex. App-San Antonio 2000) (''entry
of nunc pro tunc judgment indicated that defendant's three controll-
ed substance prosecuting has not been conso~idated for plea apd seh-
tencing, was ERROR, where .defendant was not given opportunty to be
present ~t the hea~ing and be hea~d and represented by counsel, to
accord him due process")~
ON FEDERAL REVIEW
A defendnat is constitutional entitled .to due process, at a bare
minimu~, due process requires that a defendant be give notice if the
punishment to which he has been sentenced. See e.g.,Landford v. Idaho,
500 u.s. 110, 111 s.ct. 1723 (199l)("[A] notice of issue to be resol-
ved by the adverary process is a fundamental charactisic of fair pro-
cedure:);Baldwin V. Hale, 68 u.s. 68, 233. I. well (1863)([C]ommon
justice requires that no man be condemned in his person or property
8
withb~i notice and an opproturiity to make his defense'') ;In re oliver,
333 u.s. 257, 68 s.ct. 499 (1945)(due process requires that a per-
son be given reasonable notice of a charge aganist him1 and an op-
portunity to examine the witnesses ~gainst him to offer testimony/
to be represented by counsel);e.g.,doweney v. United States, 67 App.
192, 91 F.3d 233, 239 (1937)(~changes in the records of judgment made
without notice to defendant or oppo~tun~y to be heard would deprive
person of liberty without due process of law; [P]roceeding in absence
of appellant to correct the record would have been improper/ sence
the ulimate question involved/ extent of a valid imprisonment which
he might be subjected/ was one of vital interest. to him'');United
States v.~Spiers, 82 F.3d 1274, 1282 (3d Cir. 1996)(bec~use had no-
tice and was prese~t in court-room rights were not effected by the
failu~e to give effect to a complete defense to prosecution. See FED.
R. CRIM. P. 43/ [Defendant shall be Present during the Pronouncement
of Sentence]; See also United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 (5th
Cir. 2003); FED.R. CRIM. P. 43{a) (3) ( ~reguiring the defendant ...be
present at sentencing~)~ th[is] Constitutional Right ... is rooted to
a large extent in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendmant1
but ... is [also] protected by the Due Process clause in some situa-
tions. Where the defendant is not. actually confronting witnesses or
evidence against him''); See United States v. Gagnon, 470 u.s. 522,
526, 105 s.ct. 1482 (1985)(internal citation omitted).
There~ore1 if the written judgment conflicts with the sentence pro-
riounced at sentencing/ the pronouncement cbntrols. See United States
9
v. Martinez, 254 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2000). If, :however, the dif-
ference between the two is only an determine the sentence. See United
States v. Warden, 291 F~3d 363, 365 (5th Cir.), cert. denied. 537 u.
s. 935, 123 s.ct. 35 {2000).
In this instant case, reaching this conclusion, on the States
level. TEX.COJI)E CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon 2014);Abon
v. State, 997 s.w. 2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.-Dall.as 1998)(A Defendant
has a Constitutional Right to be Pres~nt at Sentence):Aguilar V.
State, 202 s.w. 3d 840, 843 {Tex. App.-Waco [lOth Dist], 2006)(Art-
icl~ 42.03, Sectibn l(a), of the Texas0Cod~~Crimina~-Procedure, pro-
vides~ that "Sentenc~ sha11 be pronounced in the D~fendant's Presence."
TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon supp. 2005), [2]
When th~ defendant is convicted of more than one offense in th~ same
proceeding, the court must pronounce whether the sentence will run
concurrently or consecutively. See id. art. 42.08 (Vernon Supp. 2005).
See also Blakely V. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 {2005).
Therefore, based on the records of the 'NUNC' PRO-'TUNC!, hearing pro-
ceeding, [A]LL in Applicant's [ABSENCE]. Corrected the 'JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE'. Is ERROR on a magnitude .that Violates Applicant's Due Pro-
cess of Law, to hold such a· hearing wit h'out Appl it ant being present,
to afford the opportunity to be represented by Counsel, in accord to
Applicant's Due caurse: of Law ... [this actual] 'Nunc Pro Tunc •, hear-
ing in open Court where the presiding Judge the Honorable [Maria T.
(Terri) Jackson of the 339th District Court can only be found on the
r Court's actual minutes, because the Deputy Clerk [L. Guevara], DID
10
NOT filed the ~cfual Ord~ra,1by the trial Court. However, the Cor-
rection of Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' can also be found in
the official records o£ the Court of Criminal Appeals, Clerk'. The
{CCA), Order On July 28, 2014 [Supplemental to the Court Clerk's of-
fic.ial records]. See WR-25,679-15.
Thus, the Court should follow the well-settled law set-out in
Vasquez, because it violates a defendant's Constitutional Rights to
Due Process and due Caurse of Law, to Orally Pronuonce Sentence· to
Him and then later without giving Applicant an opportunity to be hear-
ed, enter a written judgment imposing a significant harsher Sentence.
See Ex parte Vasquez, 712 s.w. 2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).
CONCLUSION OF PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Applicant prays this Honorable
Ccutt of Criminal Appeals, ~ustice, ,Reconsider each and every point
raised herein and take the appropriate legal actibns, as the la~ and
justice requires, in protection of Applicant's Due Process Rights,
and Due Course of Law, ThuS~~this ERROR being on Constitutional Rights,
that the court should NOT just turn a blind eye. The Sentence should
be Pronounce, in Applicant's Presence.
Respectfully Submitted
f21tAwJ dome
ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750
HUGHES UNIT.
RT. 2. BOX 4400
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Arthur David Lowe, being thec·Applicant herein, and hereby certify
11
that the foregoing•Motion for reconsideration' and 'Exhibits append-
ed . with!1this 'Motion' herein, has been delivered by U.S. Postal
service. To the Court oL Criminal Appeals, and I SWARE UNDER PENITLY
OF PERJURY, that ALL the contents and statements made herein and Ex-
hibits are T~DE and CORRECT. and that this Honorable Court can verify
the same. I filed and submits this to this Court, for Reconsideration.
On this ___,b__ , day of ~~'~:.L.JA..r:::..-tC-~~-·_ , 2015 .
Respectfully Submitted
Ctti!J11/J ~
ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750
HUGHES UNIT.
RT. 2. BOX 4400
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597
12
the above captured cause numer.
On this __fa__ , day of _11_,_1\.....:..I{L~C~H__ 2 015 .
I
Respectfully Submitted
/};tJ!Jw d~
ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750
HUGHES UNIT.
RT. 2. BOX 4400
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597
MASTER INDEX 'EXHIBXTS'
No. Vol
2 Trial Court's Oder Corrected Judgment and Sentence 2
1 of 2 Judgment and Sentence 2
1 The1 339th Deputy Clerk [ L. Guevara], altered Orders &·: 1
1 of 2 Judgmeht arid Seritence 2
1 The Jury's Actual Verdict On •·special Issue' Form 1
1 District Clerk's acknowledgment of [Disp~sition of 1
initial Applicanion for Writ of habeas Corpus.
Respectfully Submitted
&thwJ dOLocwnent Nwnber: 60519986
I
I
~~
DJeL
Chris DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS CbUNTY, TEXAS
)
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically 1ransmitted authenticated
documents are valid. H there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail ~upport@hcdistrictclerk.com ·
\
\
itECiJHIJElrs MEMORANDUM:
rl1i=-.. instrume!H is Of !)IIOf {jllillity
and 1lflt ;u1t.i5fdt:tory ft•r ph(t¥Jgraphic
(ii)
n;c!;rd;~thm; ;,n~fi;lr :~l:.~r;~tinrls we1e
pn!'5enl r:t th~~ tir.1~ ~,! r;lnllnl{.
&Jfff0£Ct~ /!)·'f .UU NC. 1'Qo I{_;JJ(_ GIJTt'( D~i?l). 4 \ll \zolt
<,- 6 t(
<-1 I t:
~
NO. ______________________ ___
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE
}]1 DISTRICT
vs.
COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Change of Venue From: _____ ~-;'~,~~~j4-·--------
~ ON JURY ~ICT OP GUILTY PUNISBMEHT FIXED BY COUR~ OR JURY
Judge Presidi~g: LA£1"'~( {Jf fl;r Date of Judgment: tlc fob f.'r J.-3 (9 'i3
Attorney Attorney
for State: ·f<../2'2-6 for Defendant: ) Waived Counsel
Offense:
A1j I •1 ~( ·1 Iv t-1 .f I~)'"' If' (~1 J \
Degree:
·;. iJ Date Offense .
Committed:
IM "'··· I
f" .,, - {!1 L/ / '113
------------------~~~--------------------------~~----------~--------en
Charging
-...
(.n
Instrument: Indictment/~Afe~atiap
Plea to Enhancement Findings on
Paragraph( e): ff -f
6 Enhancement: ~~~
Affirmative Findings: (Cin:le appropriat.e odccUon:... N/A =Dill available or DDl.q,plicab
DEADLY WEAPON: Yes :No /A) FAMILY VIOLENCE: Yes :No :(H/A , HATE
Date Sentencef\ll 1,-,r. 0. '"'0..., ~ 1 fV1 CT\ Punishment
Imposed: . 6A.J0rd:: ~ ::Jt> 1/lfT) costs: ·y l L'\...f ,:::t.J Assessed by:
Punishment and lt fe. Itu..-PYI SCll.fYlt2./1:{ /Fine n:acntation by counsel u indicated above, ODd lbe aaid Defendant bovina beeo duly arnigncd ODd it appearing the Court lbat Dcfcndalll
waa mentally competent and baving pleaded u lhowu abOve to lhe cba!Jing instrumclll, bolb partia annoua&:ed """'for trial and lbcn:upoa a jury, ~wit, lhe
above named f and elcvcu olben·woa duly seleetcd, impaoelcd, ODd awom, the jury bovine beardlbe oba·yean pendU..bia abidUJa by_ and - v~ lho tcrma and oonditiooa of probation,
approved by lhia court aad &lladied u a part of lhia jud,_..s baewith.
BILL 0.-P C 0 S T. S
Payment· Type: _ _ (S, ';:--o,":-M-ar L:) (NOTE: If. •I•. or •o• see attac~ed order) 1
Jail Time: _ B/D/M/Y ~-/H~ ~aYes N=N_o _(jail/fine/eclat concurrent) I
Time Assessed Texas Department cf Crimina1-.r~ce,Institutional Div.: _ D/M/YI
Jail credit: _ B/D/M/Y Sentence~egin Date: 1
Jail as a Term of Probation: _ _ _ _ B/D/M/Y Additional~il Credit: _8/D/M/YI
Payable on or Before: · PLO: Reward _SPR:·...., OOC: I
Hours -of sentence to be Served by Performing""~tnlnunity Service :
Defendant to Serve sentence by Electronic Monitoring? (Y or R): · ·. l
NOTE TO SHERIFF: I
Transcript at: Pages........ . I Crime Stoppers Fee ••••••• ·I 2 I 001
serving Capiaaz ___ /Summonaz _ _ _ •• I Jury Fee •••••••• ~........ I OJO lOCi I
Sununoning___Witneaa/Mileage •••• ~.... s-k.X>
CJPF· •••••••• , ... ~....... 20 I 00 I
Jury Fee ................ " • ·• • • • .. • .. • .. 1 LEOSEF.••••••••••••••• • •• • 1 I SO I
Takirig: Bonds •••• -~·-............... I cVCF: ~--••••••••••••••• •... 00 I aS>:
C.;mmi.tme~ •.• ~ •••.••• ~ •••• ·• • • • • . . • • I DCLCF ••••• _. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I
Release • ••••••••• ·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I JCTF •• ~ • ~ ••••••••• -~ • • • • • • 1 I .00 I
Attachment·.•••• ~ •••••• ~............... I Video Fee •••••••••••••• ·•• J
·Arrest W/0 Warrant/Capias •••••• ·••••••• I DWI .Evaluation Pee....... l
-------------- RECAPITULATION --------- - - - - - - - - 1 Reward Repayment. • • • • • • • • I I
Fine Amount •••••••••••• ~- ••• ·••••••••••• I Security Pee ••••••• ~..... --5-j~OI-
Miscellaneous coats •••••••••;. •........ I Record11 Preservation Fee. --,16-f-66-l •
1 Judicial Fund Fee • ._.................... I ACCA ••••••••••••• ~....... I I -
Special Expense ••••••••• ~............. I Financial Responsibility. c
Trial Fee .••••••••••••• ~ ••••• ~........ I I PTR Pee •••••••••••••••.•• (
District Attorney Fee ••••••••••• ·•••••• I I
Attorney Fee •• • ••••••••••
Clerk's Fee •• ~........................ 40 1
001 Breath Alcohol T~ating ••• I
I •
Sheriff's Fees (Total)................ ~~()I Rehabilitation Fund •••••• I
I (
Misdemeanor Costa..................... I Amount Probated/Waived ••• I
I .
I
I· (
MAP Traffic coats..................... I TOTAL AMOuNT OWED ••••••••
/01.~~-~
signed and entered this the
Notice of Appeal:-
Probation Expires:
Mandate Received:
After Mandate Received, Sentence to Begin Date is:
(Otoclt ONLY iC Applicable) .
I I DcCcodanlto be plaeed in lhc ~S.A.I.P. • (Boot Camp) program in lhc Tcxaa.Dcpartmeat of Criminal Jullk:c, 'lnllituu.;,.l Diviaion pcnualllto Art.
62.03 (c)-9 Rcviaod Statu!co/.Micle 42.11, Scdioo 8, C.C.P.
Received on _____ day of-----------------' A.D., 19____ at ------- o'clock____M.
Sheriff, Barris County, Texas
c
c
Verified._________
-I
~--~--------------
Defendant's
Right Thumbprint
~~-4 Rl0-07-93 -2-
Cause No. 0659.15601010
The State of Texas
v.
LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID
a/k/a
In the 339TH District Court or County Criminal Court at Law No. _ _
Harris County, Texas
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
Today, the Court held a hearing on
0 .the State's written motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
~ the Defendant's written motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
0 its own motion.
Satisfied from its own recollection and I or from the evidence presented the Court
grants the motion and ORDERS entry of the following judgment in the minutes of the
cburt in the above styled and numbered case to make the following correction:
1-IOFFENSE FOR WHICH DEFENDANTCONVICTEDSHOULDREAD:
AbGRA VATED KJDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE Cl 00714)
2-IDEGREE OF OFFENSE SHOULD READ: 2N° DEGREE FELONY.
f8l If applicable, the judgment nunc pro tunc supersedes the erroneous
judgment previously entered and attached.
l
!
CASE No. 065915601010
INCIDENT NO./TRN: 9000184029-AOOI
,,§ IN THE 339TH DISTRICT
§
v. § COURT
§
LOWE,.~T 1URDAVID § HARRIS COUNTY, TExAs
I §
STATE ID No.: TX02465170
I
§
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY 1\
Judge Presiding: I · HON. CAPRICE COSPER Date Judgment
Entered:
10/22/1993
Attorney for Statej
I DAN RIZZO
Attorney for
JIM RUST
Defendant:
Offense for which Defendant Convicted:
AGGRAVA!fED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE (100714)
Charging Instrument:
INDICTMENT
Statute for Offense:
NIA II
'
D~te
3/4/1993
ofOffen§e:
I l
DeK!ee of OffenseJ
2ND DEGREE; FELONY
Plea to Offense:
NOT GUILTY
l
l
i
Verdict of Jurv: Findine-s on Deadlv Weapon: l!
GUILTY I N/A l
Plea to 151 Enhanc4ment Plea to 2"d Enhancement/Habitual 1
Paragraph: I NOT TRUE Paragraph: NOT TRUE 1
j
Findings on 1•• Enhancement
Paragraph: I TRUE
Findings on 2nd
EnhancementiHabitual Paragraph: TRUE
ll
Punished As§gssed bv: Date Sentence Imposed: Dat;g Sentence to Commence: !
JURY I' 10/2811993
~
10/28/1993 J
Punishment and Place
of Confinement: I LIFE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, TDCJ I
.I THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. ll
0 SENTEN~E OF CONFINEMENT SUSPENDED, DEFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR N/A 1.1
Fine: I Court Costs:
Restitution: Restitution Pavable to: !I
$ N/A $ 134.50
$ NIA 0 VICTIM (see below) 0 AGENCY/AGENT (see !;>~low)
Sex Offender Re!Pstration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. chapter_62. J
The age of the victJn at the time ofthe offense was N/A . J
.....0
3/12/1993 to 10/28/1993 From to
rtn
&:!Time to From to
~Credited:
00
I
From to From to
0\
0\
I .
If Defendant is to serve sentence in county jail or is given credit toward fine and costo:;. enter days credited below.
~~--~~-2~3~!~D_A~Y~S--~N~O~TE~S~:~T~O~W~A~R~D~IN~CAR~-C~E•R•A•T-IO~N~,-F~I~N-E~,AND_.~C~O~S-T_S~~~~~--
~ All pertinen~"nformation. names and assessments indieated above are incorporated iDto the language of the judgment below b)· referen'cb.
~ This ca was called for trial in Harris County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney. )
~ Counsel/Waiver of Counsel (select one) j
E 181 Defendant ap~ared in person with Counsel. l
~ 0 Defendant k.n?wingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel in writing in open cour~
g It appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally competent and had pleaded as shown above to the charging J
0 ~nstrument. Both Iparties announced ready for trial. A jury was selected, i_mpaneled, and sworn. Th_e I!\!TIICTMEI\TT was re~ · to the
13 JUry, and Defendaht entered a plea to the charged offense.· The Court received the plea and entered It of record. j
~ l
lU F-Convictiou by Jury wilb TDC checklist_OG5915401010_3.dacm Pnr,:e I ofS
I
•
I
_. . . . d
--·
.,
;.~"' ' ~-~- T~e-j
._
heard the evidence submitted and argument of counseL The Court charged the jury as to its duty to dete i~e ihe
guilt or innocenc of Defendant, and the jucy retired to consider the evidence. Upon returning to open court, the jucy deliver.! d its
ve.'dict in the pnlsence of Defendant and defense counsel, if any. ' j
.. The CoJ.-t received the verdict and ORDERED it entered upon the minutes of the Court. i
. ' Punish~ent Assessed hy Jury I Court_I No eleo~ion (select o~e) . . .
~ JIJlry. Defendant entered a plea and filed a wntten election to have the JUr')' assess pu•1lsh-ent. T.be J1ll'Y heard eYldenu . .otive to
I .
the question of pJnishment. The Court charged the jury and it retired to consider the question of punishment. After due delib~~a tion,
the ju1-y was broJght into Court, and, in open court, it· returned its verdict as indicated above.. j
0 Court. Defer1dant elected ~ have the ~u~ assess punishment. After hearing evidence relative to the question of punish~ nt, the
Court assessed D fendant's purushment as mdicated above. - j
0 No Election. Defendant did not file a written election as to whether the judge or jury should assess punishment. After hea~·g
evidence relative to the question of punishment, the Court assessed Defendant's punishment as indicated above. I
app~
The Cou ·t FINDS Defendant committed the above offense and ORDERS. ADJUDGES Al\T]) DECREES that Defeo ant is
GUlLTY of the jbove offense. The Court FINDS the Presentence Investigation, if so ordered, was done according to the able
provisions ofTE:d CODE CRIM. PRoc. art. 42.12 § 9. j
The Co~ ORDERS Defendant punished as indicated above. The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court cos , and
restitution as indicated above. . l~
PunishJnent Options (select one) · j
l8J Confineme~t in State Jail or Institutional Division. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of Texas, the
Sheriff of this County to take, safely convey, and deliver Defendant to the Director, Institutional Division, TDCJ. The C~urt
r
1
ORDERS Defendart to be confined for the period and in the mamier indicated above. The Court ORDERS Defendant remande to the
custody of the Sheriff of this county until the Sheriff can obey the directions of this sentence. The Court ORDERS that upon lease
from confinemenf. Defendant proceed immediately to the Harris County District Clerk's office. Once there, the Court
Defendant to paYI1, or make an·angements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the C.· rurt
DERS o:t
above.
0 County Jnii11 Confinernent I Confinement in Lieu of Payment. The Court ORDERS Defendant immediately commi,tfed to
l
the custody ofthe Sheriff of Harris County, Texas on the date the sentence is to commence. Defendant shall be confined · the
Harris County ~ail for the period indicated above. The Court ORDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant sha
proceed immediately to the Harris County District Clerk's office. Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or rei ke
an·angements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above. I
0 Fine Only Pryment. The punishment assessed against Defendant is for a FINE ONLY. The Court ORDERS Defendant tb proceed
immediately to t~e Office of the Harris County . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay or make arrangemenfl o pay
all fines and cou'f costs as ordered by the Court in this cause. . j
Execution I Suspension of Sentence (select one) . ·1
181 The Court O~DERS Defendant's sentence EXECUTED. · ·
0 The Court O~DERS Defendant's sentence of confinement SUSPENDED. The Court ORDERS Defendant placed on communit
supervision for tlie adjudged period (above) so long as Defendant abides by and dties not violate the terms and conditions of l
community supe~sion. The order setting forth the terms and conditions of community supervision is incorporated into thisj
judgment by reference.
1
The Cour ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated. I
· Furthermore, the following special findings or orders apply: 1
Signed and 1ntered on 10/28/13
X
.,.,
....... JliDGEPRES
0
Notice of Appeal Filed: 10/28/1993 ·
r
".
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
WR-25,679-22; CAUSE No.659154-B
EX PARTE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE § IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT
Applicant,
v. § OF
THE ST~TE OF TEXAS, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
REPRESENTATIVE(s), ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY(s).
Respondant(s).· §
ORDER
MOTION FOR R~CONSIDERATION
BE IT REMEMBER, that on this day came to be considered that Appli-
cant's 'Motion For Reconsideration'. After considering the pleading
herein and the evidence presented, the Court is of the Opinion that
the following Order should issue:
It is hereby ORDERED that the Applicant's 'Motion' is
GRANTED
DENIED
r
THE PRESIDING· JUSTICE (CCA).
,.