Gator, Wilfred Clarence
This text of Gator, Wilfred Clarence (Gator, Wilfred Clarence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
¢k
"ii{ _ _ 31 _”Q@w /0)
_ WILF§§D* c. aaron g _f_~__, __ _Toc No. 610297 _ COHECE|VED_§_
-, _ McConnél vnit ' WCHMM _Q _£ ’Beevile, Texas 78102 “ V»__m:MAR]:FZBM , ,. Mal_r_ch ¢_7_5' 20_15_ __ _ _ ____ Ah@_ACMQ_C_@_k ¢
Ms. Chr1st1ne Womble As_a1stant D1str1ct Attorney
Frank Crow!ey Coutts Bu11d1ng _ _ _ §
133 H. Roverfr`6nt Blvd., LB- 19 ' " 1;'
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 ' - s 4
Re: W;it No. W90-23810-V(A{ bear Ms. Womblee w
_ ylease.f1pd ehclosed App!icant Reply to State's Reqpohse to Applicat1cn for the Wr1t of Habeas Corpus.§
Bg copy of this 1etter, I am forward a copy of the £§ same to the Coutt ofCr1m1na1 Appe1a1s_at the addressed below. !hank you_for your time and consideration 1a th1§5matter. . w _; z ll ~ ' ,, § § b S1ncerely, 5 2 .'.j'. \\ , - WrLFr$;:fo' c. GA ron fi-~z-es __ -~ _ cci Mi. Abel A_coste, Clerk § Court of Ct1m1na1 Appeals _ s P. O. qu 1.2308, Capito1 Stat1on 'Agstin;zf%xas?Vs?I! enclo;utes `:@ ii ¥'- ) _
¢~., .-_. ; . w '=' ~ ' \.\ ‘ "¢~ -.rr.»‘ -\~ ¢ ', . - _.'\ \“$ ~§; ¢=.,,_. WRIT loc l’@¥$l¢la*?fl) sxpanzp * t v s rn res 292cn avorcra§ Wrcrnto cLARsncs aaron s orsrnzcr cover ¢F§_ ' s oALLAs coerY, rsxns jcnron“s nancy ro srars*a axsponss ro aprzrcarxon ron carr or canons canons jo ing noNoRAB§n,Juvcz or sara covers d cOHES NO#, 'IL!BBD cLARll¢l GAfGR, inc loe 610297A Apylicant in é$o.above number and cause ana file this his Reply§to Statcfs'kesponse to Application for Writ of Hapeas Cotous, and fog good cau$e, Applicant states the following¢ § ; r. lt ‘\r HISTGRY OF THB CASB - §pplicantwwas charged with murder¢ The jury found hin guilt;, sentenced him to confinement for life in the rakas Deoa;tmsnt o{;btiminal Justice - Institutional Division, and a§aeased a $10,000 fino. Applicant's conviction van affirmed on aégaql. & 4 1'1. ' ` 'ISSUE RAISED IN APPLIGATION go the in§tant writ, the applicant contend the rakas Board%of Pardon and Patole statutory criteria Board.it~making its aecision' 5 L wm ¢~,z»' v,, j ' irr. ' nprz,rcnn!"s REPLY lipplicant contend thatt the board of Pardon and Parole criteria for,t?e release of an offender onto §arole are vague§§and'unconstitutional.'::l , fha statute calls on the Board members to evaluate the offenders*ypotential for rehabilitation and_ebether” his rileaee could emdager the *rnblic!¢ see, V¢r.c.A. éov't coa`e§'.'s soa. 14,9.20‘§`)._. jhe state in their response_has misconstrued Applicantfs Writq see, stete*a Respenae at page 31 The decision makers § ` has rcpeatedlg set applicant off for parole for: ”..;The record`indicated that_the inmate committed on one or moret| violent crimin§l acts indicating a conscious disregard for j the livds, safety¢ or property of others) or the inteng offense or,pat§ern of criminal activity,has elements of brutality, violence{ or conscious selection of victim's vulnerability such that the inmate pose a continuing threat to Public saf%ty; or the record indicated use of a ueapon eeeee‘""__: jl'Applican§W§ conviction was committed over fid)igeare,.. ages &he.decision makering should have consider his_pr§sent record and filps which would have revealed his rehabilitation 3 ;\ presentation.?see, exhibits attached to the original writs z 3 Applicant know, there are no mandatory rules or guide- 3 lines¢hat must be followed in every case because each offender is unique. The Board and Parole commissioners have the stat- "-‘L'L» utory duty to make release decision which are only in the best interest of scciety. Parole panels use parole guidee lines as a tool to aid in the discretionary Parole decision sp *'_` s" process. but here, in 'rexaa', ”Administrative Code, Rule 8 l45: 3, Policy statements relating to parole release decision_; by the Board of Pardon and Parole clearly states an offender will be 'consider' for Parole when eligible and when the offender "met“vthe following criteria with regard to "behavior" during incarceration; v d y 4 /a£‘ other than on initial Parole eligibility,- v the Rpplicant must not have had a major disciplinary v misconduct report in the sir-month period prior '§`_ to the date he is reviewed for parole) which haig has resulted in loss of good conduct time »: g_" `or reduction to a classification status below § ’ r`z’ ' that‘aseigned during that person' s initial intry "”into TD€J, andy , w b, at the time he is reviewed for parole the person ‘Mé ' \@ g v ,must be classified in the same or higher time W earning classification assigned during that ,person ,'s initial entry into TDC'J. . Applicant has not had a major disciplinary case for years not along 'six-sonths" The parole release decision,v however, is more subtle and depends on an amalgam of elemeat, some of which are purely subjective appraisls by the Board members based upon their experience with the difficult and sensitive task of evaluating the advisability of paroles :)' .\. m . `..3.. release. Unkile revocation decision, there is no set of facts which, if shown, mandate a decision favorable to the individual the parole determination, like a prisoner - tran- for decision, may be made "for a variety of reasolN and often involve[s] no more than informed prediction as to .what would best serve Icorrectional purposes] or the safety and welfare ex the inmate. see, teaches tano, 427 owes at 225, 96 8. Ct. at 2550. The decision turns on a "dis4 cretionary assessment of a multiplicity of imponderables, entailing prim;rily 'what a man ”is' and ”what he may become" ,_rather than simply °what he has done.f Kadish, the advocate' nand the expert - counsel in the reno .~ correctional Process, 45 Hinn. L. Rev. 803, 813 (l96l)s.see, original Wr it. asl"Texas statutory Lanugage° itself creates a protectible eupectation of Parole. The soard members reply on the section ghich§ provides in part.:'Whenever the Board of Parole`considerw the release ofma committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unisss it is of the v opinion that his release should be deferred because:' 1'__"(a) there is a substantial risk that he will not conformF _to the condition of parole; ”fb) His release would depreciate the seriousness#of his crime or promote i*'*:""disrespect for law) ”(c) his release would have a substantially adverse effect ondinstitutional disciplinary; or - "dd) his contiuned correctional treatment, medical are or vocational or other training in the facility . gill substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when release at a later date. Texas Administrative Code § 145.12._ h €" ' a _ . `_-4- `! ' gha Statejenphasize that the etructdre of the provision toyetner with §he use of the word "shall" binds the Bo§rd !§?.? -'of Parole to release an inmate unless any one of the four w‘ rr??, specifically designated'reasons are found.“rn`their‘re%iew or view, the §§atute create a presumption that parole release-F will §e'grantea, and that this in turn create a legitinatel ex§ectation oéfrelease absent the reqnisite'finainy tn;t -one'of the jastifications for deferral exists. v §pplicantfe sole ground for relief should be granéed. `IV;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gator, Wilfred Clarence, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gator-wilfred-clarence-tex-2015.