Brigham, Melvin Monroe

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2015
• Docket: PD-0420-15
• Status: Published

Opinion

HZO-tE COURT QP CRIMINAL APPEALS DF T2XMS

AUS T)Kl TEYAS ORIGINAL MAR,

HDNDfKAbLS CDUtilDF CRimtHAL APPEALS, ABEL ACOSTA.CUXH

CbUAT OF CKimiMAL APPEALS OF TEXAS FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O. bOX I&3D2 CAPITOL STATlOAj APR 17 2015 avstih, tews 7*7/t Abel Acosta, Clerk Ke : Melvim gourde BRigham v. w state 6f texas a. APP.MJylH-bbMl-CR

L>EAR JW. ACOSTA*.

ENCLOSED FdA FILlN&tS TH£ DRl&lM^L ANO(t)]6N£ COM OF APPELLANT- PETlT/OA!£j{ PETIT/OM FOR &ISLRETWKIARY REVIEu"

PLEASE GIVE MOTILE UPDkl RECEIPT,

THAWK YOU RESPECTFULLY FOA YDUA AlSHTAHCE.

RECEIVED IN StkiCEABLy COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LANT^-fftlt,Tiofln~wwii APR 06 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk LbuRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AUSTM TEXAS

HELVIN FiVhlAOE MlEHAM AWELLmT-PETlTlbHEK ,

V. EDA HUMER /3-/4-E>AJ92-Crf

7HE &TIA7E Of TEXAS APPELLEE -RESPONDENT.

PET/ 7/0/U toA LDISCRETIDNAM AEl/IEU

PlTlTlDHEA-AmiLhtiT COMES mcoMPUMcE OF APPELLATE AL/lES DP T0JE STAT£AA' TFXASAAA£LLA7£ PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO ASSERT THAT IKE /3TFI COUATOP APPEALS UAS LJAML/N ITS MCJSIOA/ ro kmPW THE t(SN\llLTIOk\ Of THE TRIAL LOUAT OF THE 33?TH DlS7«(C1 LDUR7 E-PUFtAA7£>M£0vMTy,TX.

lE&al Analysis

THE LOU'AT 0F APPEALS INITIALLY LOME-JAMS THATPtTITIDMEA EJ/fSEMVICTIb Af f/ULWC TO C0A7ALYMTMS£X OFFEHDER REGISTRATION AiEOUJAEJA£MTE IMtiFA T£X. £#££ EM/y. AA6C 4/Va/- MA ^J. /0Z&)&(3) M/IX ENhahceaieNT Paraeaaphs... The c.o.a.boes not £aovwestatuteiad Padafaly' ljmemtTsmm, tc TUE TfilAL COURT PUMISHElS TAE OFFfMSE AS A FIRST-DE&REE FELONY'VMM/lA7.£J. /&Z&)/??£*{iy STATES "TU£ NEXT NIEMEST DECREE OF FEIONY^UHICH HAS NO PROBATIVE S.TAN&ARDSAMT#£S£tJf£NC£ ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES WATS FIXED BY THE STATES INTENTIONS TD USE PAlORS AT TN£S£MT£NC/NE PHASE... THE SOLE PURPOSE FOK SumiTTINE^JFOUR PREVIOUS PLEA BAR&AM MldZS LtlTH AN AOOITIOMAL [X\ PRlORS. ..TOTALLIMELE) SlY PRIORS, PREJUDICED PETlJimH AT 7N£ ABUSE OP DISCRETION' SWEE BY FU£ TR\AL CDOM AMD iMCOyyifiETFAICE Of THE TRIAL COUNSEL TO ABANDON Wt 0&T£CWAJ' E>£ 7UE/A/O/CT/AIHT \NHEM ATTEMPTING TO CHALLENGE THE SUBANTT/NE 6P TNE ADDITIONAL PAIORj, CMVICTJOMS INDtOEA fAA TUE STATE Tb SATISFY ITS ftE&ISTRATION CNAME.., INHERE IT FAIL TO AD SO &U£ roXt)£XA/AATioM OFbUTi TD REGISTER. ART.02.lDl. MB FAILURE TO CO/vftlV U/TH A?££/S7AATJEW A£&UIJ?£W£MTS, AT (A) ART.Ll. IbX UERE GENERAL PENALTIES ADA WM-E0MAL1AMCE £K/ST UNDER Sc/BCAAPTEA C FJHICH IaJAS bURWL TRIAL, MOT THE EASE-IN-CHlEf TNEDRISTIC MDICTAIEN7 SUA 7NEWEREFACT £MA 7... PETITIONER AID Hbl MDTlfY THE FORMER USHARTOt! PDUtE DEPARlmEHTOFFICIAL IN A TIMELY AHA77£A£A 7DAYS..- UPON mELUM'PETITIONER IHTENTlM TD CHAH&E ALSIOEMT MERE HE RESIDES IN 7AEJAn?£ UHI1 UlTH CORPORATE mm AH^miiS b^ 5il^&mAHM£N7UNt^ t^L MSA/mamiNT AUTHORITY IN THE SAME MUlCi/VtLITY MILRL TAB .^PETITIONER RESIDES...THE BRIEFS AND PRESENT ASCOAOS OR JlDEhtT. . . ON IaMEIHER LRU ENFbRCEWENT OFFICIALS TO LJIT: EL CRMF6 mMESTl&ATEh OR CONSULT U/TN THE FOA/n£A LAU) DP AUTHORITY OFFICIAL THAT 5N<£ REPLACED,, PPlOA TD NOTMlM THE STATE aA PKOSSCOTDR ID PROCEED /N ENFORCING, SUCH MINOR INFRACTION WAT COUU) HAHEBEEN RESOLVED. PETlTlDRW/nnW POINT OFEAAOK IS THESTATE AND CM PAJMAY AFAJON TO AFP/AM' JUCM EMWC7/M &ASED SOLELY AAJ PESlBlNE IN TN£ SAME AiUAlC/PALITYAS SO JMAlE EJN£A£OI/ZAZEAL- ~ DUS ENFORCEAJEAJT IS QUESTI0MA8LE DA/ ITS FACE., . U>»£N SOW£ C/ACUJTC0UA7S bJJU A£V£AS£ SUCH PRIORS, USED DN... ftbTH£NHANCEPi£NT PROCEEDINGS BYTHE TRIAL E0UA7CDMSE&UENFiY BECAUSE A MOTION TD UlTHhRAU &UILTY PLEAS LJOULD HAVE JSEEA/£AAN7£DYf TNfSUFFICIENT PACTS, ON THE RECORD TD ESTABLISH EhCN ELEMENTOP WE OFFENSE MOULD HAVEBEEN' CHAUEA/AED ANB APPELLANT-PETITIONER. PLEAS UAS INVALID, SEE.'COMMON' U£ALTU V.LOAiMC ,-VC3 rnnss. toil °iit m.e. &d 17,3 Patass./o/jiP WHATS HOT HAVE ISEEN REASONABLE CONSIDERED &i THE APPELLATE COURT IS THE LEVEL OP PERSPECTNE.UHICH LJAS S.IUENI ON THE BRIEFS AND RECORDS WHEN DETERMINING SUCN ELlCrlQIUTV LEVEL FDA PE&ISTAATIOM P£OUiR£ir)£NT T7/A7'P£7/7WN£A DID No7 AOS£ A- A/sAOf RE-DFPEN.SE OA A DANGER TD THE PUBLIC INHERE THE SPtSOPFEND£A AEO/STAY ACTAUOUSA JUbOE (TRIAL COURT) IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO AELIEVE ASEX OFFENDER PAOAI SUCH hb£RESl\JE REGISTRATION AE0OIREAIEN7S, 3UT DOES NOT />EArn7 A JUDGE: (miAL Et>UAT) To ORDER SUCH REGISTRATION UHlCI-t IS &UESTIOHARLE JUDICIAL LAU TD ENFORCE UN£N " THERE INAS NO STATUTOAY SUPPORT FOA POSITION'".IJHEN 7N£ STA7ES SERAINED PAASIME OF TNE: TEIT" Vpi' UNTENABLE"SEE I COMMONUAALTIY V. VSMTUAA. ftS MASS JlE)3.,?87 M£, ??S ME, Ac! 73 I'/h*ss.AoA3n PCSAMM in CONFL IC TDISA GPEEMENT THATSATISFIES THE YNlTiAL AND STANAAAB AEl/IEU INAET/YEA 7H£COURT Of APPEALS DECISION CONFLICTS MTFt ANOTHER COURTAA APAEAU DECISION ON ZN£SAMEISSUEEtMEAl h\)L\i REErlSTRY' bPiD hMS APPLIED TO APPELLANT PETITIONER BY 7EXAE SEX OFFENDERS AEE-LS7AY ?n> KEEP THE Rfi&ISTfY CURRENT INHERE PETITIONER*'AESIDEINOT^ESIDED 'IN THE SAmEAlUNICfiALITY IaIITHIM 7 DA1S...DR FACE STATE PECULATION THROU&H THEDPiPE&ISTRATIDN P£6>UIA£A7EN7S UNDER STATE LRU) AT THE DISCRETION DP TAE PPOSECUTOA OF ANY &H/ENSTATEJ££PUA//T£JS sm£S V, MURPHV. OS HP.3d 7n (IOTA CIA. ADUNSUPPORTED BY UN/TEA STATES V. LUNSFPAD v7AS F.Sd %$% ($TH CIR. A0J3). THE SPECULATIVE INTENT TO PESIDE IN WE SAAIE AAEA Of MUN/ciMCiry r-DR PA\LURE TD 6-IVE NOTICE TD LAD ENfOACEWENT//OFFICIALS UOITHlN 7DAYS ARIB RESULTS IW A