Henderson, Randy

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 3, 2015·No. WR-78,769-03·Published

Opinion

Randy Henderson #1170754

George Beto Unit

1391 FM 3328

Tennessee Colony, TX 75880

July 28, 2015 ~·. ~~yl~:t[j) ~~ ee.~r Bf' C'F<Y~j(j~I~IIJI'PEALS In the Court of Criminal Appeals r:.u§ oa 2u15 . ·~

Of Texas Austin, Texas

RE: Writ of Mandamus

Dear Honorable Acosta: Please find enclosed my writ of mandamus and unsworn declarat'ion. Please bring these instruments to the attention of the court.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

tl:

fffi. ..1\.... \\o ..:b.~a l\''1oJ.S'=\ \

Randy Henderson, Pro se TDCJ-CID NO. 1170754 1391 FM 3328 Tennessee Colony, TX 75880

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

CAUSE NO.

RANDY HENDERSON, Relator

v.

HONORABLE LEON F. PESEK, JR, JUDGE, Respondent

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NO. 03-F;...0146-202 · FROM BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Randy Henderson, Relator in the above sytled and numbered cause, and files this Writ of Mandamus. Relator will respectfully show as follows:

I.

RELATOR

Randy Henderson, TDCJ-CID NO._ 1170754, is. an offender incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be located at: George Beto Unit, 1391 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880- 5000.

The act sought to be compelled is ministerial; not discretionary in nature .

II. RESPONDENT

Respondent, Honorable Leon F. Pesek, Jr., in his capacity as District Judge of Bowie County, Texas has a ministerial duty to provide notice regarding Relator's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Order filed on or about Octo-

ber 20, 2014, regarding the errors induced in his time calculation which adds a sentence without a judicial proceeding, thus, adversely effecting his parole.

III.

ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY

Relator has "no other adequate legal remedy."

IV. SENTENCE

Relator was sentence in 5 counts of his indictment on or about May 1, 2003. Count 1, an eight year sentence and count 3, 4, and 5, 15teen year sentences were to run concurrently. Count 5 of the sentence were to run consecutively with count 6, count 6being a 20 year sentence. The total equates to a thirty-five (35) year sentence. See Exhibit A -Relator's Judgments.

v. PAROLE

The parole board granted Relator parole on or about July 7, 2014, in count§~: three and four to begin counts 5 and 6. A part of the problem is that .. ,

counts 3, 4, and 5 are concurrent. Therefore, the decision to grant parole should have been on the concurrent counts of 3, 4, and 5. See Exhibit B - Notice of Parole Decision .. State Counsel for Offenders acknowledged this on or about April 20, 2011. See Exhibit C - State Counsel for Offenders. Nicole Habersang, Assistant District Attorney, previously acknowledged this in her Motion to Dismiss filed on or about May 21, 2003. See Exhibit D - Motion to Dismiss.

When the parole board granted parole in counts 3 and 4 to start 5 and 6, the 5th count was stacked to 3 and 4. Counts 3, 4 and 5 should have been together as "ceasing to operate," and 6 was to start. When this occurred, a lSteen year sentence was added.

The State Counsel for Offenders, on or about September 30, 2014, response to Relator was contrary to their April 20, 2011 _·response. In their September letter, they stated that Relator's count 3 and 4 "cease to operate." They then added that counts 5, 7 and 6were to begin. See Exhibit E. Relator was found not guilty in court 7. See Exhibit F- Judgment. The State Counsel for Offenders then added that Relator's sentence begin date at February 27, 2GV4.

VI.

APPEAL COURT'S RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL MANDAMUS Relator filed an original mandamus in the Sixth Court of Appeals at Texarkana , Appellate Cause Number 06-15~00034-CR, regarding the Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Order he filed on or about October 20, 2014. The Sixth Court of Appeals denied Relator's mandamus on or about March 10, 2015, although they acknowledged, with.authority, that the "trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion." See Chiles v. Schuble, 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App. --:-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990).

The Sixth Court of Appeals misapplied the law by stating " ... this COurt cannot instruct. the trial court how to rule." See· In re Shaw, 175 S.• :W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App. -:--Texarkana 2005). Relator never sought the Sixth Court of Appeals to "instruct the trial Court how to rule." Relator merely sought the Sixth Court of Appeals to order the trial court to afford him "Due Process" regarding his Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Order. See Exhibit G - District Clerk's file Mark of Relator's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Order and also, Relator's Unsworn Declaration.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator, for rea~on ·shown, moves the Honorable Court to issue mandamus, ordering the trial court to afford him hi9 due process right to be heard regarding his Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Order.

Respectfully submitted,

\ Randy Henderson, Relator, Pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Randy Henderson, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been served by United States mail addressed to:

Honorable Leon F. Pesek, Jr. Bowie County District Judge

EXHIBIT A - RElATOR Is .JUDGMENTS

-. ·. '·

Cause No. 03-F-0146~.202 (90UNT ONE)TRJ\f 9027854769,,. ....;,_ "_ . . . . ·.. ~~/ 1.·!~ ;-·;·,:)~/

THESTATEOF TEXAS § V. .. § RANDY HENDERSON, § DEFENDANT SID: TX0415770~

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY;

SENT~NCE By~; JtJRY To INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, TDCJ.

PATE 0F JUDGMENT: May 1, 2003· JUDGE PRESIDING: Bill Peek ATTORJ\"EY F<DR THE STATE: Nicole Habersang ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT: David Lasbford OFFENSE: Indecency .with a Child-Exposure ST A TUTE;FOROFFENSE: Article;22.11, Penal Code DEGRBE OF OFFENSE: Third Degree Felony · APPLICABLE PUNISHMENT RANGE

. COURT COSTS:

TOTAL AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION:

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

RESTITUTION:

· DS4: Judgment ofC~mviction by Court; Sentence By Jury, Cause No. 03~F-0146~202; Page 1 of3 Pages .·.

;./

I

.{,i,:

. ~"' .

The Sex Offender Registration Requiie~ents under Chapter 62, CCP, apply to the:

Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the'' offense waslO years old. ·

This sentence shall~ concurrent.

On the date stated. a?ovel the above numbered and ·entitled cause was regularly reached and called for trial, and the State 1appeared· by the attorney stated above, and the Defendant and the Defendant's attorney, a~ stated above; were also present Thereupon both sides announced ready for trial, and the De(endant pleaded not guilty and a jury, to wit: Derek Dwight. and eleven others, was duly sel~cted, impaneled and sworn. Having heard the evidence submitted and having been duly chai:g~d by the Court, the jury retired to consider their verdict. Afterward, being brought info open court by the proper officer, the Defendant; theDefendant's attorney, and the State's attorney beingp~esent, and being asked if the jury had agreed upon a verdict, thejury answered it hadand returned to the Court a verdict, which was read aloud, received by the Court, and is now entered upon the: Minutes ofthe Court as follows: ·

We, the jury, find the defendant, RandyHen.derson, guilty of indecency with a child by exposure as charged in count one oftbe indictment. ·

Thereupon, the Def~ndant having previously elected to have the punishment assessed by the jury, p~eaded to the enh:ancement paragraphs, if any, as stated above, and theju:ry was. called back into the box and heard evidence related to the question of punishment. Thereafter,, the jury retired to consider such qJestion and, after having deliberated, the jury was brought back into open court by the proper 1 officer, the Defendant, the Defendant's attorney, and the State's attorney being present, and being asked if the jury had. agreed upon a verdict, the jury answered · it had and returned to the Court a verdict, which was read aloud, received by the Court, and is now entered upon the Minutes.'ofthe Court as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henderson, Randy, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Henderson, Randy (Henderson, Randy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jenkins v. Jenkins
16 S.W.3d 473 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Alvarez v. State
605 S.W.2d 615 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Chiles v. Schuble
788 S.W.2d 205 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)