@,/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)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)