z 7/ 751/oz 75 ;7/5 600/87 0/=' d/€//%M//?A, /z’/”/Z~?,?L
/?,€_.' /7’/’/”1///77/'04/ /'Z/z //¢/07 of /7/%’/% famsz ' M/r/¢/@. W/<~£<§ 3<»‘1' 08 £/ /9/%/'2:’ 572'
//k//?ZS’. _ E/r/w5€ /¢)yzz'
l 14/0'5 57/)/)7/7 ¢"0/)}/ 174 /;>P/Z
¢/W£ /%)`/)2//*/?/7/&7///¢,1/ 72 7/'//5 MAFZY /5' ///z,l//¢§/ -
F/i/”f'c.'//?Z<`:’/Q
7/7'/¢/1//€ 4/0¢) @§R§§§?WERPYALS é,' j /? guy/7 ~’U"‘ 01 2‘“5 , ;¢/777/5.5 /M W/~// A@@m@@si@,©u@ve< 38£/ 5/10 /
/?M//A”j /Z"v/zf 75§//5
0&¢&1»,//4/, copy or 5
§ v mem am - 08 . 77<.¢'<.»/0_ /?L/ ~@7_¢,@ -/z -A EX PARTE l IN THE COURT OF l CRIMINAL APPEALS STEVIE ANDRE ROBERSON v AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL TO STATE’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CGRPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Comes now STEVIE ANDRE ROBERSON #1877155 acting in pro-se in the above styled captioned of cause, submit the following Rebuttal with Exhibits A-D to the State’s Supplemental Answer and the 114th District Court"s Finding of F acts and Conclusion of Law to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and will show as follows;
I. BRIEF HISToRY oF THE CASE \
f)n December 9, 2009 applicant was paroled in Cause No. 114.1462.03 for man./del. of controlled substance, as a condition to parole the State imposed sex offender stipulations and registration ln Feb./2013 applicant was not physically present at the home address on the registration form when the Smith County Sheriff Dept. conducted a sex offender resident update. March 1, 2013 a warrant was issued. March 26, 2013 he was arrested and charged with failure to comply with Sex offender registration Aug. l, 2013 on the advice of his court appointed counsel, applicant plead guilty to Art. 62.102 failure to register as a sex offender and received 25
years confinement in T.D.C.J.-C.I.D. in a plea agreement
11. GROUNDS FoR RELIEF
(1) Wrongful conviction:, void/invalid indictment; (2) Ex post facto cause; (3) 5th amendment violation: double jeopardy ~ punished twice; (4) 8"‘ amendment violation ~ cruel and unusual punishment; and (5) lneffective assistance of counsel. _IIl. STATEMENT OF FACTS
When applicant unconditionally discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction March 16, 1986 no probation, parole or mandatory supervision; he acquired a vested substantive right to exemption of any future actions in regards to this rape conviction by the state. Applicant is entitled to relief. IV. BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is on applicant Ex Parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). Applicant must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence” that his alleged violations “contributed to his conviction or punishment.” Ex Parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). ln order to prevail, applicant must show facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Ex Parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114,116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief may be granted where conviction holding applicant confined is void/invalid. Ex Parte M, 746 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). REBUTTAL GROUND ONE: Wrongful conviction, invalid/void indictment
The state claims that applicant did not object to an error of form or substance in the indictment Cause No. 114-0760-13 (Exhibit A pg. 1-2). Before the date on which the trial begins he “waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceedings”.
Applicant disagrees because, “a plea of guilty does not preclude an actual innocence
claim (wrongful conviction) on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.’l See Ex Parte Tuley,
109 S.W.3d 388,390,397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Applicant learned after pleading guilty that he ha§ a vested substantive right to exemption of the sex offender registration program.
The state‘ contends that applicant’s prior rape conviction Cause No. 7-82-416 of March 16, 1983 requires him to register as a sex offender under Art. 62.002 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc.
Applicant disagrees because when he unconditionally discharged the 3 year T.D.C.J. sentence in Cause No. 7-82-416 rage conviction (Exhibit C pg. 4) March 16, 1986 no probation, parole or mandatory supervision, he acquired a vested substantive right to be exempted of any future legal actions by the State in regards to this rape conviction Applicant has a vested substantive right to exemption of the sex offender registration program that was enacted 5 years after he completed or unconditionally discharged Cause N'o. 7-82-416 rape conviction
See Ex Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002) Const. Law 92 "where a right cannot be considered a vested right unless it is something more than just a mere expectation as may be based upon an anticipated continuance of the present laws, it must have become a title, legal or equitable to the present or future enjoyment of exemption of a demand made by another."
The sex offender registration program statue was enacted June/1991. Since thed Legislature has made numerous amendments/statutes altering remedies and procedures, including Art. 62.002 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. which deprived applicant of his vested substantive right preserved under the former statute Art. 62.11 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. (See Exhibit B pg. 3).
See ln Re K.N.P., 179 S.W.3d 717 (2005) Const. Law 186, "The legislature can pass legislation affecting a remedy for an accrued cause of action without violating State Constitutional Article prohibiting retroactive laws if it affords a reasonable time or fair opportunity to preserve the claimant's rights under the formerlaw." Vernon's Ann. Tex Const.
Art. 1&16.
The change in the remedy to Art. 62.002 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. omitted in part, “that offenders must still be serving that same sex offense in prison, on probation, parole or mandatory supervision as of Sept. 1, 1997 to be required to register as a sex offender under state law (Exhibit B pg. 3) clearly stated in former statute Art. 62.11 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. See Rodriguez V. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 at 66 (2002). Applicant has a vested right to be exempted from registering as a sex offender. He was not under any form of state supervision as of Sept. 1, 1997 in regards to Cause No. 7-82-416 Rape.
See Ex Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d 366 (2002) Const. Law 191; "Legislature may make retroactive laws altering remedies and procedures so long as these changes do not disturb vested rights.”
"The state appellate courts have a duty to interpret the laws enacted by legislatures" m v. Mason, 980 S.W.2d 635 (1998) statute 176.
Applicant dot not have a duty to register as a sex offender. He is not in violation of Art. 62.102 failure to register as a sex offender in Cause No. $`14-0760-13. Applicant has been wrongfully convicted by the State use of an invalid/void indictment
Applicant is entitled to relief.
REBUTTAL GROUND TWO: Ex post facto/retroactive law cause.
The State cites Rodriguez v. State_. 93 S.W.3d 60, 77-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) as it's case law to show applicant's ex post facto claim has no merit. However unlike Rodriguez who was under state Supervision for a sex crime until 3-18-2003, well within the sex offender registration program enactment of June/ 1991 and amended in Sept. 1997.
Applicant argues that the State violated both the State of Texas and United States constitutional ban on retroactive laws/statutes that:(A) impairs the obligation of contracts; (B) deprives vested substantive rights and (C) imposes new duties or adopt new disabilities in respect
to transaction pasted or completed, by imposing sex offender stipulations and registration as a 4
condition to applicant's parole in Cause No. 114-1462-03 for man./del. of controlled substance. Applicant will show as follows: (A) IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF APPLICANT’S CONTRACT
On March 16, 1983 applicant signed a judgement agreement with the 7th District Court of Smith County Texas in Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction (Exhibit C pg. 4) to a 3 year term in (T.D.C.) Texas Dept.- of Corrections. The agreement was when applicant completed the 3 year term in T.D.C. )` All legal obligations/liabilities were terminated Applicant unconditionally completed/discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction on March 16, 1986. See Atkins v. M)_mb_le, 300 S.W.2d 688; "Where a valid contract agreement and a release constitute a complete bar to any later action based on matters included in the contract agreement and covered by the release." U.S.C.A. Const. Art 1& 10 Cl and Vernon's Ann. Tex. Const Art. 1&16.
The state impaired the obligations of applicant's judgement agreement in Cause No. 7-82- 416 rape conviction by using this completed rape conviction as a liability to indict, prosecute, convict and imprison applicant in Cause No. 114-0760-13 failure to register as a sex offender, violating both the Texas and United States constitutional laws. Applicant is entitled to relief. (B) DEPRIVED OF HIS VESTED SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT
When applicant unconditionally discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction March 16, 1986 no probation, parole or mandatory supervision, he vested a substantive right to exemption of the sex offender registration program statute, because this statute was enacted 5 years after applicant unconditionally discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction See § Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002 Tex. Crim. App.) Const. Law 92; "Where a right cannot be considered a vested right unless it is something more than just a mere expectation as may be based upon an anticipated continuance of the present laws, it must have become a title, legal or equitable to the present or future enjoyment of exemption of a demand made by
another. "
The sex offender registration program statute was originally enacted June/1991. Since then the legislature has made several amendments and changes altering remedies and procedures, including Art. 62.002 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. which deprived applicant of his vested substantive right acquired under the former statute Art. 62.11 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. which clearly states, "Offender convicted of a certain sex offense on or after Sept. 1, 1970 and who were still serving that sex offense under some form of state supervision as of Sept. 1, 1997 are required by law to register as a sex offender." (Exhibit B pg. 3) Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 at 66 (2002). Applicant discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction March 16, 1986 no probation, parole or mandatory supervision (Exhibit C pg. 4).
See ln Re K.N.P., 179 S.W.3d 717 (2005) Const. Law 186; "The legislature can pass legislation affecting a remedy for an accrued cause of action without violating state constitutional article prohibiting retroactive laws if it affords a reasonable time or fair opportunity to preserve a claimant's rights under the former law" Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Const. Art. 1&16.
b Art. 62.002 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. is an amended statute/law of the sex offender registration program altering procedures and remedies that resulted in applicant being deprived of his vested substantive right to be exempted from registering as a sex offender.
See Ex Parte Kubas,_ 83 S.W.3d 366 (2002) Const. Law 191; "Legislature may make retroactive laws altering remedies and procedures so long as these changes do not disturb vested rights."
Also see Ex Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002) Const. Law 191, Mental Health 433(2); "Registration requirements of the sex offender registration program are remedial in nature rather than punishment for past crimes, and thus are not subceptable to claim that they violated constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws, unless they deprive or impair vested
substantive rights" Art. 62.11 Tx. C.C.P.
The stateh!as deprived applicant of his vested substantive right to be exempted from registering as a sex offender, he discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction March 16, 1986 (Exhibit C pg. 4) no probation, parole or mandatory supervision 5 years before the enactment of the sex offender registration program effective date June/1991. See Ex Parte E-/ .E l j§$$§. 5_
1'$§§1§.'3@(._Lac,;:¢,'e.z@a5)sra;ares .w¢,.%z ‘ims spirer is emma }/v mwze.”
The state deleted Art.-6211 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. and amended the law with Art. l 62.002 Tex. Code of 'Crim. Proc. altering the remedy of class of offenders who are required to register as a,sex offender by omitting a very specific part of Art. 62.11 TX. C.C..P. requirement which states, "Offenders must still be serving that sex offense in prison, on probation, parole or mandatory supervision as of Sept. 1, 1997 to be required to register as a sex offender under state law (Exhibit B pg. 3) Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 at 66 (2002). This change in remedy or procedure deprived applicant of a vested substantive right because he was not under any form of state supervision in Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction as of Sept. 1, 1997. See Ex Parte M, 83 S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002)"Const. Law _191, Mental Health 433(2); also see ln$ M 179 S.W.3d 717 (2005) Const. Law 186.
The month and year that sexual assault (rape) 22.011 became registratable under Title llOA Revised Statues Article 6252-13c.1 was Sept. 1, 1991 (Exhibit B pg. 3). The state.has deprived applicant of a vested substantive right to be exempt of registering as a sex offender l because his rape sexual assault occurred Aug. 14, 1982. See State's Supplemental Answer to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Attachment 1 Indictment 7-82-416. 7
(C) IMPOSED NEW OBLIGATIONS/DUTIES TO TRANSACTION PAST Prior to applicant's conviction for man./del. of controlled substance in Cause No. 114-
1462-03, he did not have a duty to register as sex offender. Dec. 9, 2009 applicant was paroled
in Cause No. 114-"1462-03 man./del. controlled substance As a condition to parole, the state imposed sex offender stipulations and registration (Exhibit D pg. 5-7).
The`state cannot use applicant's discharged prior rape conviction Cause No. 7-82-416 (Exhibit C pg. 4) as a liability to impose sex offender stipulations/registration as a condition of parole to applicant's conviction for man./del. controlled substance Cause No. 114-1462-03. See / Ex Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002) Const. Law 188; "Laws may not operate retroactively to deprive or impair vested substantive rights or create new obligationsj impose new duties nor adopt new disabilities in respect to transactions or considerations past or completed
The state has violated applicant's rights to both the United States and State's constitutions' ban on retroactive laws. Vernon's Ann. Tex. Const. Art. 1&16 and U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1&10 cl. 1. He is entitled to relief.
REBUTTAL GROUND THREE: Double jeopardy - punished twice; 5th Amend.
When applicant completed the 3 year confinement term of the 7th District Court's judgement in Cause No 7-82-416 rape conviction (Exhibit C pg. 4), he acquired a complete bar to later actions by the State in regards to this rape conviction See Atkins V. Womble, 300 S.W.2d 688.
The State has used Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction a second time as a liability to indict, convict and punish applicant in Cause No. 114-0760-13 failure to register as a sex offender (Exhibit A pg. 1-2) in violation of applicant's rights to the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution double jeopardy clause. Schnautx v. United States, 263 F2d 525; 79S.ct. 1294; 360 U.S. 910.
REBUTTAL GROUND FOUR: Cruel and unusual punishment; 8th Amend.
The state imposed sex offender stipulations and registration as a condition to applicant’s
parole in Cause No. 114-1462-03 man./del. of a controlled substance, which has no connection to 8
a sex crime (Exhibit D pg. 5-7) as a means of punishment for a prior rape conviction Cause No. 7-82-416 that ultimately resulted in applicant being convicted and sentenced to 25 years confinement in T.D.C.J. in Cause No. 114-0760-13 failure to register as a sex offender. See Speth v. State, 965 S.W.2d 13 at 15 (1998). This act by the State amounts to cruel and unusual punishment Applicant is entitled to relief.
REBUTTAL GROUND FIVE: lneffective assistance counsel; 6th Amend.
Applicant argues that his court appointed counsel failed to conduct an in-depth investigation of the sex offender registration program and the status of his prior rape conviction, nor did she acquaint herself with the facts of the class of offenders who are to register as a sex offender under State law, instead relied on then facts of the case as represented by the prosecuting attorney see Butier v. srate, 716 s.w.zd 48 (1986)."1¢'/»>¢1L“iramv£'sn&kr£ H'<-lox~co~u/m$)/.”
In the court appointed counsel's affidavit pg. 4 (State's Supplement Answer Attachment
ll) she admits that no'amount of research of the sex offender program_would have changed the
l
facts of applicant's case.M@eL]§ !.B'INEISI`T.SWQd»lyq$j('¢q?@qq,|)ljkl‘D£FFH lNVf§TM}§U¢AI)
Applicant disagrees, had counsel researched the constitutional laws in regards to the sex offender registration program statute she would have uncovered significant facts of law to support a defense for trial such as, applicant ha$ a` vested substantive right to be exempted from registering as a sex offender because he discharged Cause No. 7-82-416 rape conviction unconditionally March 16, 1986, five years before the enactment of the sex offender registration program. See Const. Law 92 in Ex Parte Kubas, 83 S.W.3d at 367 (2002).
Applicant's prior rape conviction Cause No. 7-82-416 offense date Aug. 14, 1982 happened 9 years before sexual assault 22.011 became registratable Sept. 1, 1991 (Exhibit B pg.
3) Const. Law 92 Ex Parte Kubas, 83S.W.3d 366 at 367 (2002).
Applicant has a vested substantive right to be exempted of registering as a sex offender under former statute/law Art. 62.11 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. See Const. Law 186 In Re K.N.P., 179 s.w.3d 7`17 (2005).
That Art. 62.00 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. is an amended statute/law altering a remedy or procedure to the sex offender registration program statute which deprived applicant of a vested substantive right acquired under former statute/law Art. 62.11 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. See Const. Law 191 in Ex Parte Kubas 83 S.W.3d 366 (2002).
Counsel admits in her affidavit pg. 4 that she could not find a defense and with her experience dealing with Smith County juries, applicant's prior rape conviction, plus his criminal history, applicant would receive a life sentence. See Attachment ll pg. 4 of State's Supplemental Answer.
Applicant has satisfied the Strickland v. Washington standards for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Ex Parte Scott, 190 S.W.3d 672 (2006), "Relief granted when counsel did not have a firm grasp of the law, and the plea entered on counsel's advice was involuntary." See Ex Parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856, 858-859 (1999) Crim. Law 273.1(3).
Applicant plead guilty on the advice of his court appointed counsel in Cause No. 114- 0760-13 failure to register as a sex offender.
V. CONCLUSION AND4 PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, applicant prays the court enter a judgement in his favor based on the facts of law in the above Rebuttal to State's Supplemental Answer in Opposition to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and grant relief to all grounds argued. Applicant is
entitled to the following relief;
VI. RELIEF SOUGHT
(1) l Enter a judgement that the state wrongfully prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned applicant in cause No. 114-0760-13 for failure to register as a sex offender.
(2) Overturn/throw out this conviction Cause No. 1 14-0760-13 failure to register as a sex offender.
(3) Order the Director of T.D.C.J. - C.I.D. to release applicant
(4) Order T.D.C.J. - Parole Division to reinstate applicant's parole in Cause No. 114- 1462-03 man./del. of controlled substance without sex offender stipulations or registration
(5) Order the State to remove applicant's name from the Registered Sex Offender
Data lnforrnation on the Texas Dept. of Public Safety website.
Respectfully submitted,
/j@’/¢/' JA%MM
Applicant
INMATE'S DECLARATION _l, Stevie A. Roberson, being incarcerated in T.D.C.J.-C.I.D., declare under penalty of perjury _ that according to my belief, the foregoing facts stated in the above Rebuttal to State's Supplemental Answer in Opposition to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and
Signed on WAV%V??' ,2015 Mz 7 /é%€v@>/)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stevie A. Roberson, hereby certify that a copy of Applicant's Rebuttal to State's Supplemental
Answer in Opposition to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus was served by U.S. mail on
W;{ 577 , 2015 to l_\/licheal J. West, Assistant District Attorney for the
State at 100 N. Broadway Ave., Tyler, Texas 75702.
"
é:’ , Applicant Stevie A. Roberson #1877155 Cole Unit 3801 Silo Road Bonham, Texas 75418
okla/AIRL cqu ar 4
WR~,,?¢\ SM--og 72 z‘€. M>, //4.¢974,0 -13 “A
Ex PARTE iN THE COURT oF cRiMINAL APPEALS sTEviE ANDRE’ ROBERSON § , AUsTiN, TEXAS
APPLICANT’S EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF REBUTTAL TO STATE’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
EXHIBITS A - D
Pages 1 - 7
HESPEcTFULLY guam/maj 7777% 75 776
z. ' ~ W§ 1 'EX!i-fllBI-T_';_ ll\l,"D'l(d)#@D
` Page _1_ of__z_ . - F,,_E " ` ' views RUGER ' INDICTMENT 1 »)TR/c r CL E§,_ 2013 § JU~ 26 AH ID: § o »` THE sTATE oF TEXAS iN THE 114131111 ~ ' RT " ,,,_ vs ' EXA's .' . . sMirH co »~` - // sraviE A. RoBERsoN ~ _ ._ §0 7 Cl 000 ,\. CHARGE: Failure to Register as Sex Offender ~~'. ARTICLE: 62.102 CONTROL #: 13-02906 NA E A i_) B A HE TAT F xA ;
THE GRAND JURORS, duly selected, organized, sworn and impaneled as such for the County of Smith, State of Texas, at the January~June 'I`erm, 2013, of the 114TH Judicial District Court in and for said County, a quorum thereof being present, upon their oaths present in and to said Court that on or about the lst day of March, 2013, and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County of Srnith and State of "fexas, STEVIE‘ A. ROBERSON, did then and there, while being a person required to register with the local law enforcement authority in the county where the defendant resided or intended to reside for more than seven days, to-wit: Smith County, because of a reportable conviction for Rape, on the 16th day of March, 1983, in cause number 7- 81-416, in the 7TH District Court of Srnith County, Texas, intentionally or knowingly fail to register with the local law enforcement authority in said county; l
AND THE GRAND JURORS AFORESAID do further present in and to said Court that on 'or about the lst day of March, 2013, and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County and State aforesaid STEVIE A. ROBERSON did then and there, while being a person required to register with the local law enforcement
" 'Smith County, because of a reportable conviction for Rape, on the 16th day of March, 1983, in cause number 7- 81-416, in the 7TH District Court of Srnith County, 'l`exas, intentionally or knowingly fail to comply with change of address provision;
AND THE GRAND JURORS AFORESAID do further present in and to said Court that on or about the lst day of March, 2013, and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County and State aforesaid STEVIE A. ROBERSON did then and there, while being a person required to_ register with the local law enforcement authority in the county where the defendant resided or intended to reside for more than seven days, to-wit: Smith County, because of a reportable conviction for Rape, on the 16th day of March, -1983, in cause number 7- 81-416, in the 7TH District Court of Smith County, Texas, intentionally or knowingly fail to comply with
visiting location provision;
authority in the county where the defendant resided or intended to reside for more than seven days, to-wit:_
Original - Pinkl State’s Copy - Green _ Defendant’s Copy - Canary
trl'-
_ _'E>
[ri! ’~" `r
'Page 2 of 2
AND THE GRAND JURORS AFORESAID do further present in and to said Court that dn'f)i"§b'<`)@i w A`1_,st day of March, 2013, and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County aqu Slli`e?¢`or aid 'STEVIE A. ROBERSON did then and there, while being a person required to register wi?WlH¢/ 1852} law fgf){c§nent authority in the county where the defendant resided or intended to reside for mB§e than \£nt d`£',mt§-wit: Srnith County, because of a reportable conviction for Rape, on the 16th day of March, 19 , ` number 7- 81-416, in the 7TH District Court of Srnith County, 'I`exas, intentionally or knowingly fail to coggle ' status
change;
And it is further presented in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense (hereafter styled the primary offense),' on the 14“‘ day of June, 1995, in cause number 4-95-338 in the 114TH_ District Court of Smith County, 'I`exas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Forgery by Passing;
And it is further presented in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the primary offense, and after
the conviction in cause number 4-95-338 was final, the defendant committed the felony offense*of Man Del QS¢_ RG 1>=1G<4G, and was convicted on the 6'h day of February, 2004, in cause number 114-1462-03 in the 114T-H
District Court of Srnith County, Texas;
AGAINS'I` THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
`
Foreman of the Grand Jury
Original - Pink State’s Copy - Green Defendant’s Copy - Canary
-£»
TEXAS otPi? or CR\MiN/\L Jusrie€
OFFENDER oRn=_/;rra'rigu t~lA)voeooi<
west (r<,zv.“ii/oq) Paet; No. el v
C. `Sex Offender Registrat|on Program information Sex offender registration is required in all 50 states. Offenders convicted of ‘ "'éertain sexual offenses on or after September 1, 1970, and who were still sewing that sentence in prison, on probation, parole or mandatory supervision as of September 1, 1997, are required by law to register with local law enforcement authorities _TDCJ will complete the registration paperwork at the time of your release "from prison and send it to the local law enforcement agency in the community where you will live and to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). Within 7 days of your release, you must report to the local law enforcement agency and verify the information Failure to do so may result in a new felony conviction. '
TDCJ will also assess your level of risk to re-offend based upon a risk assessment instrument approved by the Risk Assessment Review Committee. The risk level is noted on the registration form. lf you are noted as high risk and were convicted of a sex offense on or after January 1, 2000, your neighbors will receive a post card about you after you arrive in the community.
information will also be printed in*the newspaper on certain sex offenders and will be available on the DPS website regardless of the offender s risk leve|.
- OFFENSE CODES REQU|R|NG REG|STRAT|bN Under Tit|e 110A, Revised Statutes
Article 6252 - 130.1-
’Adult and Juvenile Offenders
v
' . MoNTH/YEAR PENAL CODE OFFENDER DESCR|PT|ON THE OFFENSE ' - BECAME . REG|STRABLE Section 15.01 Convict|on For Attempt, Conspiracy or So|icitation of an offense listed 09-01-1995 Section 15_02 below (excluding indecent exposure). Secti'on 15.03 1 \ ~ 4 Section 20.02 Unlawfu| Restraint, Kidnapping, or Aggravated Kidnapping and the 09-01-1991 Section 20_03 judge made an affirmative finding that the victim or intended victim was t v younger than 17 years of age. (inciuding defened adjudication) \ g Section 21.11 indecency with a child (_excluding deferred adjudication) 09-01-1991 Section 21.11 -\ ' l lndecency with a child (lncluding deferred adjudication) 09-01-'1993 Section 22.011 Sexual Assault (excluding deferred adjudication) 09-01-1991 Section 22.011 Sexual Assault (inciuding deferred adjudication) 09-01`-1993 ` < 62 l \' .
/"`1
’ Wiei:r c
._, l 475-14 SBNTENCI.
7th THE STATE OF TEXAS 43 IN THE/DISTRICT COURT OF ».\" No. 7 __ 8 2 _ 4 l 6`,5‘ v Snu'th County, Texas STEVIE A. ROBERSON Jan.w]tme T€rm. 19 83 March 16, ' 1983 This day this cause being called, the State appeared by her er-minal District Attorney, and the
defendant STEVIE A. ROBERSON
was.brought into open Court in person, in charge of the Sheriff, for the purpose of having the sentence of the law pronounced in accordance with the* Verdlct Of the Jury herein rendered and entered against
him on a former day of this tcrm. And thereupon the defendant STEVIE A. ROBERSON was asked
by the Court whether he had anything to say why said sentence should not be pronounced against hlm and he
answered nothing in bar thereof. \¢Vhereupoiglth&ggijilr_§§reoieed$dgri‘n tlie\g?aiéenofi$:ésa(iéiéglfgidant STEv-IE A» ROBERSON ' " ` ' STEVIE A. ROBERSON
. lm . to pronounce sentence against as follo\vs: lt is the order of the Court that the defendant
who has been adjudged to be guilty of Rape l a felony and whose
punishment has been assessed by the* verdict Of the Jury _ at confinement in the penitentiary for (3) years, be delivered by the
Sheriff of Smith County, Texas, immediately to the Director of Corrections of the Texas Department of Corrections, \or other person legally authorized to receive such convicts, and the said STEVIE A’ ROBERSGN
shall be confined in said penitentiary for a term of iiizMZ-XZXZXZXZXUZ?SM (3) years in accordance with the provisions of the
law governing the pc_nitentiaries'and~ thc 'l`cxas _D`cpartment of Coi'rections. And the said STEVIE A. ROBERSON
is hereby remanded to jail until said Shcriff can obey the directions of this scntence.
/S/ Donald Carroll, Judge of Said Court
‘lnnrt worth ¢pp|y|n¢: Venllc¢ ol l|\c Jury or Jml¢meut o| the Court.
'“\ i
'>l"l` Q_
State nf Texag@
Texas llmnrdm or'|!mmm .lusnce
heinous no hence llmsiol Certificate of Farole
beto of issuinch nll,l!!”
lane ' Tbc.| | ` $!D t
RGIERsoN.STEVIE ‘_ 01222812 v 03056290 ' Legal county of residence Appreved county cf release
SI!YN SIITH
Loeetion: Unit RB, TD¢J-lh . __ 114_1,,,2_°; y . oms€: MHu./DEL. or cwf)€ou_£o 60357/¢)¢¢'»=
aim
n
The fmc Dewhent of Crieinel Jd.etice lneiitdtiml division (1'|\€.|-¥0) dl the ¥tete of fmc bee detereined thet enid diem le eligible for ,erdle under the mullen of theater MI. fend coe't. cede. ms the foot 'lderd of m id perales (Ioerd) hereby orders that said Mhmer be relemd nder Ferdle led shell illedieiel¥ r¢\\drt do the office iodi¢\ted holder for merviciml
TYLER DFG 69 directly to your approved residential plan. Reeort te 3915 MRKEY sT your Parele officer by 9 A.|l. the first working day after TVLER. ix 15101 release date. Feilure to dd sd will consol further gate (903>§81-8511 ~ lundy and result in the issuance of errest lerrlnt.
end shell be permitted to de et liberty in the legal custody of the lemle divi.elen er coe rem depart-ut af u~inlnal .lneti¢e but mem ca the orders of the leon edd the ‘_l’ene dependent et criminal dance Feroie bivleien, end under the ruled end rendition of Peroie herein.
the period of Pmle dell be for e period mellon te the minn tere.hr \d\ieh the offender res sentenced leu werner tile ectu\llv tirle ¢1\ th sentence m tile te de served under Perdle le elec calculated ee wonder tlle. me certificate shell donee effective chen eligibility requires-ute |er rerele under chester ild, fine See't. code heve been let er lien rereie h ordered w the loud end men eli role- end . ..\v general end tucci-l cdaditidna erc egreed to by laid offender.
snrurimn.v women common
wise otherwise lmidld, l snell reside in the county in mich l resided et he tile f admitted the effeer br which l lot sentenced to the loetitvtidl\\i Divilidd er the county d the offense fur died l w eminech to the lmitlltidnll Diviliblt if l \I\! W\ \ N$i¢l'l* °'F "\' ltete of fene.
t mall demetrete en emotional null level thet ix equal te er greater men the me skill level of students m hen convicted the sixth drede.in‘l dubiic school il the Itete di renew
l edell cub-it to teeth hr eicehel er controlled sentences-
f shell not emicete directly er indirectlw with the victim de te er neu the . ‘* lien of ¢ dr 'M‘ ihl 'li¢“l; er ge te er near e schools dn'cere fe`cility. er ei\iler nullity where d de¢eMent child of the victll ll in etten¢hnce
l shall not intentionally er knowingly nonunion directly er indirectly ulth. mr intentionally er housineg ed near d residence echeel. piece ed lesley-mb w minus de the o"'eue for shield l m to the ' ‘
-l mn rem the sun ee fmc rev the note el w Fut-¢ueederv‘£ducetie¢\l m in much l eertininted in mt:.l.
m em- ma gm . '
l shell pertir.l»ete in e dm or dean continued er care treeteedt orderee.
l shell register a emi:;:e"eoder:\:n:er% meter n. we di ¢rininel_,`r_dc¢¢zrd. , x shall nuiiw“`im do dr within dundee attained br e her-le neel cf ore-me mere children suddenly gotten nor shell l unwise or perticinete in nw Frogrdl colt ‘ es ner" dr . ‘ , mo ere 11 here of m dr ymder. end l shell attend Ilv¢deleeicel canceling ee entitled be n mem-ind officer-
l ehell nerr- ndt lcss then inn deere dr mltv service et e iervkt meet delimited by l verdin penel-
I’Eml. €IDITI°U$
l. - l shell be colored to the w level ef meredith dr combine melt-d until ed¢rodriete level of mervieidd ix butner eeteblimd by dblectiee enunth inetrdndt end menuidn ease diminution
! - l shell register ne ul o"ender ndd_er medina 62. code of cri-lui m md leh»ite bind nolo er other weei_\e_n____ to the
._ se*;;“;_‘»»¢».:£"__ »»»¢~ ` "` .:;‘L.. t.'_._,¢~~»¢ .,/- ~ »./~.____ l'~.’\".a~' :_~-»';»»5'4\'* `°I$;`“De~}pmdent di Miie !ehty lee _the adhere di creetid¢ e ma rewri: /* ` u. v?"“isr'oE=¥o`i§er- ~*
9 - l shell pertieioete in hazel dental lentel hurd-tim treehent. colonelan er eddrddrietl molded ee directed by supervising l porch officer-
$ - l lhhli.mil le l emilo¢d ¢ll¢dlidil Mre°iiu) tro-dmi pmi-lp hide ley include dribeldil “dile cedaeeline senioae. drivino restrictions or ely et the related mate es directed by the elmeth
¢ 'l!!ml l\ lebldtlll¢ e dffinrl
m"m$mm($,mm'mlfm¢mmml’m“¥°F-H$d!;
r‘\g&t&,
il P\rele is eetle¢eeterily emi-teel mine expiration lli\!£ mt
dale viii bdl lam W im m le¢$
12-(>‘?43 _ ~5*
f y - I t ' TDCJ~FD l 1 Certificate of Parole
Nil¢ TDCJ 0 SID § R°BER$°N»STEV!E 012228\2 03056'¢‘,9'0 8 - llot unlawfully m druga, nareoti¢s. or controlled cmt-ncn. s - l will not usa lubricating inhalmta. s - x rul not mm alcoholic monon. s ~ l null Quh¢i¢ to_ urinalysis _loni!cring. s - l um mae m new uu"»nnuq. f ~ l shall pll~ti¢:ip~¢¢ in the Sex thndlr TN-l\en\ Progr\l to inglndol l.. 1 shall adm by all lambt»d condition ammonia us
mccu'&s°\m`loara"ofr'r€i¢m?faa'nm`?.:*l_¢hilx nom n minus m am noonan mcmann ca nn umw directed in writing by nn sunme alma oflx=u-.
- lot ¢M~¢ll liu lthnd. be elale hu. volunhu~ for or tatu- au inclination of hidur llornins» to include mtd colleen loader collum unlvmi!y, public or vrin¢¢ or am Mil.iti.u u¢¢-li!o er ounn¢i.u. without hard paul leal-oval md M¢ifiu\inn al nw
~ lot math came w muth sseun mont il\. nr!iab¢h tm c!kmd, nor go in. or an m ulmlly~ol~iootnd haul-uh inducing mn mann nassau wlon. adult video storu. or m unions that provides dolt mtorkaimmt. am ga nw or
hot participate in any volunteer molina cr manner any serving without prior written mma or ly supervision offiur. ln tdc 0"|\! m such winner activity cr urvic\ la uncond- l lost lr"ide witkin notificath to the unmi¢ti" rl¢ll\ilnt
¢ublit tov woman cmin¢tim outside m random minn between tdc Nl¢u» m fm milth me sumner \rn¢unt
X __ vs=¢xn er oua@ex.n ¢¢ ¢n~ vs¢:z. ar ¢h~ xv.zin¢ »f¢¢n¢». ! - El\l~ol.\ lsd W\ieinh in n kruh¢n\ program for nx ofhn¢ln u dincnd ky the Wnisi.ng varela offic¢r. .Z... _ 11a-thurman serviced dancing or exhibition. .L ' isom/arm rmrdino 111 erilind disturb as dircchd by w nmu-vining parole of!u¢r. .="m ° om£dor» at directed by tdi minimizing paula n"i.c»r ltd annum by tdc board ml. L,.__»\_¢~_ 1 m '_
EXH/B/v' D
QdOIMS- ' nsciozoos
~ State of Texazz '.
T:m llzmm'mt or emma lomas
l'mols nn Pnnols lmsml Cortificato of Parole
aonoral conditions of parol¢ rolooso
none ' ` rosa s sro ¢ oossnsou.sr£vr£ . o1222s12 oso;saso
in consi¢iroii»n of th Forolo ground ll by ua lourd¢ l do m moot such Pu'olo. 1 rl¢oooiz¢ ton ly rolml il conditional bond upon ly verfornncc of the follo~il'lo tom md conditional
l. l mn upon alma fm don mtito!ioo. noon illodinhhn n whom lo n mo M¢i¢¢rl mcmahon rmrt n around did follow IL\ indirv¢fim YN! 17 hrolo Olficlr.
l. l mill conti no sums mail th lou of this into or of m otdlr hon or d th hit-d lhtu.
!. ! udall reside ill o sobelth olo¢c u wound w ly wouldn Mlnr.
C. l chill nor from oneida m ustc al finn ithout tdc normal of n mountain o"i¢¢r.
5. l shall not annually m. muu.'on. nll. nor hon uad~r n control m noon or illegal vo¢oe¢l.
8- ! moll mtd pardons or olsen of lilrllumlo or dol-uhl Mhr-
'I. l shall not outer into m corn-ml h net ll 'll\forlol"' or mci\l aunt for m in odoth comes vitbou¢ maine tri¢hl\ ooorovll of the Poroi¢ division binder or duioou.
0. f linn obid¢ by oil wohl Coodl!iono iuolld utu li di the lwd.
9. moral Prori;ion.n
‘ A- l fmbe tom to didn ov oil rolls of leo condition bond iv Tmc or nn univinl auto in¢l\\dino. dol not
lmiod !o» m ricoh-tmt not l mr ij m billion or Iro¢lldinll confining moon viollunll of llroll n hmirod or lm- lul of too ranking oh¢¢. m note in void l w do loud or too into of To¢ol. X Nr¢Mr none md conan that nn mutual linn if l n under th fnt¢ro\ot¢ consul for holt Mhmlor mcmillan or m ohio lh»roin l on do found \hilo on hale or under wo inildlotioo~ w conduct oven hearings on duped maury. proper or men m v required by hon
l. lo !|\o nmi l do ¢mt¢d m Wivuog¢ d roo.idllq in md blm mir dm ¢\»¢rvillon of ltv odor non or \orrilory mr 'tbo interstate mt m wit ddhllior mullins mount n rml utmost mdn. section !ll.l'l aodlor rol¢i coated by too thurston Uo_iulol on hull M*hndlr nonunion md il lor my noon l ll\| do couldn of th nolo or bus in violation al hhs tenn cod conditions o| push nonunion x handy corn to univ extradition to the into of nw ?rol m o!h.r non or torrioory tri-diction ll or abide al nn united inns m l m do found. f him linn that l sill not ia du m contlot ltd mart by tdc fish al imm m roe-him ohio or unitary or mo M|nr onto or torritorl wiadi:¢ion in or edition vol bind inno- to romrn n do tdc itoh or fms-
, _ ¢- l shall van during too mud or ly subdivision our ind all wiltmding finu, court com md hoc Idiudgod minn u- te th ellrk of ¢h¢ court of edwiouo|\¢ di l o¢r" to Imi¢o q mo utuch didn doumolwation verifying smart of said houma t shall m o manion ha for not noon aunt l n remind oo report to o hmo offi¢cr n ios!m¢od by or nrdc Mfiur.
B-` ln the want l a owed in or allowed to aside in o blind house or comity midmtial facilih. l hand mn to 00 dlrl=tlv to md room in m foolil\l ‘ d th \m!il ny m Mvioion. l mill aid~
4 d fha rules of the nullity iad attend all rmirlo mtm¢. l shall not lone mo musical mims al m facility nod the INMM» thumb omni ¢or traveling to and hon ¢odr. or u oo\horiz¢d by heilitv rulu. Du'ino n chin l shollooymofugmzincnntomhgilihilrmirod. lmlllm¢nllms¢oaaylo\oruhial¢m! fannon of with hollitv stan men the lohr vehicle il mt in mo.
£. is required w tm locrd, l shall obtain and nw in n mccann n finn warden of Fuolic van tmi rcer ld¢ntl¢ieiiim card or Brim'o tie¢oo¢. l olson orlnn\ laid identification to lou onfor¢oomt or ina lleoortleot of d‘llhnl hakim official Wl limit
F. lf l la ronald to o dotoimr md deported main tdc intorm!ioool boron-l or the |h.ltod Sutu orior \o th ouil\m utme hit w oh this blow mi¢m!l. l dill oak laklr mo l)l\ikod idio$ middly- Il\ m mt mt l olin im baird into m lll\ilod Sllto¢» l chill r»or! i_odiot¢.ly. a instl'v=¢¢d to fbi min m on this ll.lun hr¢iri=on. lf at my zinc prior to th mims mirl¢ioo don moon on this blow miranda sold anoth m
_._.__.__._.._ _.__ ____.____.____4-__£!£11..\1.znccisz_nnwdy,._f.;hall_imdilhly..oom rohm within tt dunn toward do intruded to !|\t oHie¢ shown on
ma nmu cornnein. -
!m€!'ICElleVm¢lfmsm\d¢n¢mdondm¢tobooouldoln:ho|meondi!immd¢rmi:nlavinorllns¢d. lmh¢r and-rum ol\d ogru that o dol-lion or ronald to ¢oooly rid oo1 o¢ mo or _,_ ` ny on ..... cum for rovocotion of MI"ision. l \mdorohnd lou mm l woman or o moss in imll nn m annum tile credit shall h nw until o dohrlinatioa
' "_“_’io lad¢ in such con md m mood-d tim :rodii nn or rowland liquid minimal bo continuod~ memm_m¥_m
1 ..u. 1.» ;
l.\ 1 -) |-l», n ¢.' ~; -a 1 . . n
DE£BBM
STEVIE RUBERS°N Data
f hondo codify flat m rolu. regulation nod conditions novo dan wlde to th releon¢ md holm du loran to ohio ny tv nn won rolono.
MRW ' n:cnnn
parole oivisi¢m Reorosmtotivo note hoc 3 ` -' »¢- \.ut hoc