z/-
DATE: iZac^C. JAN 05 2015 Court of Criminal Appeals loni ° \^ P-O- Box 12308. Capitol Station Austin- Texas 78711
December 23. 2014
RE: Cause no- C-371-010342-0826520-D "REFILING OF RETURNED MOTION.
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS -
Dear ABEL COSTA. Clerk -
Please deliver the enclosed Motion(s) and Petition to the Court to be AMENDED to my oriqinal 11-07 Writ of Habeas Corpus and heard by the Court as "PREVIOUSLY" filed and RETURNED to me from your office-
Please NOTE that the 'oriqinal' 11-07 Writ of Habeas Corpus Stamped Filed in the Tarrant County Court 371 by Clerk Thomas A. Wilder November 18- 2014- was ORDERED transmitted to your office on December 12- 2014 by Judge Mollie Williams-Dec -12•2014-
Your "NOTICE" to me "RETURNING" my Motion and Petition statinq that "at this time you do not have a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals " dated December 16• 2014 I -
received throuqh U-S-Mail on December 23- 2014-
PLEASE STAPLE AND REFILE THIS MOTION AND PETITION FOR AMENDMENT OF EXHIBIT -F- AND Motion for WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THIS (MOTION TO RE-AMENDFORMER: MOTION AND PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S REPLY-
THANK YOU for any and all service and consideration into this matter-
Sincerely
Gery Ze£ Scott TDCJ-rD# 1123905 Ramsey One Unit 1100 F-M- 655 Rosharon- Texas 77583
CC:GLS.
EX PARTE § IN THE COURT § OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
GERY LEE SCOTT § OF TEXAS MOTION TO "RE-AMEND" FORMER :
"MOTION TO (AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERD HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS""
AND
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
NOW COMES- GERY LEE SCOTT- hereinafter•(Scott)• Movant in this action and does plead the Court allow the aforementioned Motion(s) and Petitioner's Reply to be ENTERED as amendments to his oriqinal 11 07 Complaint Application because:
As shown as a matter of "Record" Scott 'filed his "MOTION TO (AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"" on December 01. 2014 as stamped by Clerk- Abel Acosta "Received in Court of Criminal Appeals (RETURNED TO SCOTT December 23- 2014 along with his PETITIONER"^ REPLY TO STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS- stamped RECEIVED IN Court of Criminal Appeals'.- December 04 . 2014. Clerk- Abel Acosta and (RETURNED) to Scott on December 23- 2014 a span of 22 days lapsinq from receipt into the Court to return to Scott thouqh the 371 Judicial District Court of Tarrant County TX- had transmitted it's findings and ORDER from the:Trial Court Judge on December 12- 2014 and its first notice of Scott's Filed 11.07 November 18. 2014 as Stamped, by Thomas Wilder- Dist- Clerk Tarrant County. Texas.
See November 20- 2014 State's Reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus•(PATRICIA HATLEY),Deputy District Attorney- and-- State's Reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus•((signature undestinguishable)) Dated December 11- 2014(MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS & ORDER "December 12 2014 Filed by Thomas A- Wilder- Dist Clerk Tarrant County- Texas- Time 11:58-
: Scott avers that he filed his "original" 11-07 application November 4- 2014;Stamp FILED BY Thomas Wilder Clerk- tarrant County- TX- - Nov- 18- 2014 and received answer of the'same on Nov. 20. 2014; Filed his "MOTION TO AMEND "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST FOR • COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED' TO ^RESPONDENTS" " , on Nov- 25. 2014- STAMPED FILED Abel Acosta Dec:01- 2014 (Returned to Scott December 23- 2014); Filed his PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S. REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF" HABEAS CORPUS- Nov.-' 26- 2014 Stamped filed Dec- 04- 2014 Abel Acosta Clerk.; "also" RETURNED TO.Scott stating. "NOTHING FILED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT this time-(Notice Dated December 16- 2014 Abel Costa- Clerk)- ; THOUGH. the Tarrant County Clerk's Office 'transmitted' it's MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS & ORDER to the Court of Criminal, appeals December 12- 2014 (time) 11:58 Thomas A. Wilder. Clerk,Scott receiving his notice December 18, 2014 of the same- thus Scott also avers that he "timely" filed h is Motion and Petition to the Court of Criminal Apepals in answer to the State's Reply(s)- as well as it's Memorandum/Findings & Order-
Scott request that the contents mailed to the Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk. Abel Acosta- this December 23- 2014 be FILED and AMENDED to his "ORIGINAL" 11-07 Habeas Corpus Application- and HEARD with the affect of 'findings' of the CCA pursuant to Scott's original 11-07 Application-(See Original Application No. C-371010342-0816520-D - ; MOTION TO AMEND "EXHIBIT-F- AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"": PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS-; EX PARTE GERY LEE SCOTT No. C-371-010342-0826520-D MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS & ORDER (Dec-12- 2014) Tarrant County- Texas District Court Clerk- Thomas A- Wilder-)
PRAYER ' i~ .
I- MOVANT in this action• PRAYS that the. Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas- GRANT relief as prayed in this affidavit and take into account (all) of the relevant provided information herein and throuqho.ut Scott's filinq(s) respectively- but in the alternative this Honorable Court'Judg'e render such relief- that Scott seeks to relieve his suffering under 'law' that is "unconstitutional" and arbitrarily abrogates his punishment.
Respectfully Submitte,
3ery Lej^/HS'cott pro se TDCJ-ID# 1123905 Ramsey One Unit
,1100 F-M- 655
Rosharon. Texas 77583
CC:GLS.
UNSWORN DECLARATION
I. GERY LEE SCOTT, is the Movant in .this action and does declare under the Penalty' of"Perjury that the information in this affidavit is True and Correct to the best of my knowledge and attest to the same as signed to this {/^ZP Day of December 2014. -, ^/GERY LEE/ SCOTT ~~PRO SE
CERTIFICATION
I- GERY LEE SCOTT. DO CERTIFY THAT THIS ACTION HEREINMENTIONED HAS
BEEN DELIVERED TO THE Ramsey One Unit "Indigent" LAW LIBRARY MAIL BOX FOR PROCESSING TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT
AUSTIN- ON DECEMBER 23, 2014 and signed to the same this 23rd Day .of December. 2014-
Respectfully Submitted-
^©fy I^e SGOtt^ pro se
^-
CC:GLS.
SHARON KELLER Court of Criminal Appeals Abel Acosta PRESIDING JUDGE CLERK RO. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION 512-463-1551
LAWRENCE E. MEYERS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 SIAN R. SCHILHAB TOM PRICE GENERAL COUNSEL
PAUL WOMACK 512-463-1597
CHERYL JOHNSON
MIKE KEASLER
9. ¥^k
BARBARA P. HERVEY
CATHY COCHRAN ELSA ALCALA JUDGES
December 16,2014
Gery Lee Scott
Ramsey Unit I TDCJ#1123905 1100F.M. 655
Rosharon, Texas 77583
RE: Cause no. C-371-010342-0826520-D
Dear Mr. Scott,
After a thorough search of our records, we find that.you have do not haye a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals at this time. If you have any further questions or concerns, please direct them to the District Clerk in the convicting county where you originally filed the application.
I am here with returning your documents.
Sincerely,
OJulCUk
Abel Acosta
Clerk
AA/vc
Enclosure
Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, room 106, Austin, Texas 78701 website: www.cca.courts.state.tx.us
CAUSE NO- C-371-010342-0826520-D
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUJS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 11.07; 11.05; 11.23.
"MOTION TO (AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"'*
EX PARTE GERY LEE SCOTT Movant -
V.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, EXEC.DIR. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL ^012014
JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION (TDCJ). Respondents >©i Acosta, Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
Now Comes,' GERY LEE SCOTT- hereinafter. (Scott) requesting permission to "amend" h is (Exhibit -F-; "TIME CREDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION"-dated 11/10/2014 by (Kelly Enlae. 'assistant Director for Classification and Records.)
Scott avers that he has attached the original sent to him on 11/10/2014 and received by h im on 11/22/2014. and request it be amended to his original C-371-O10342-0826520-D Application (From) the 371 Tarrnt County Texas Court.
Scott also in h is Motion to the Honorable Court request that this Honorable Court of Criminal Apepals of Texas issue through "Order" a Habeas Corpus to the Respondents illegally restraining him. to release h im from his illegal restraint pursuant to Article 11.05 and 11.23 respectively, his. "only" means of immediate redress for relief of his illegal restraint.
and by virtue of the "unconstitutional laws" enforcing his illegal restraint/(V.T.C.A. §508.145-§508.149). that the Honorable Court pursuant to 11.07. 11.05. 11.23- Order the Respondents holding Scott illeqally. to deliver h im from his illegal restraint to the Court of jurisdiction for adjudication of his claims he is illegally restrained by virtue of unconstitutional law arbitrarily abrogating his EARNED Good-Time and Work-Time calcul ated to his Flat-Time mandating his "release" to parole when the specific enumerated factors exist to exact Half-Time served to the sentence for trigger of release to parole.
Scott avers that his 35 year sentence he has served 12 years Flat-Time plus his EARNED 11 years Good-Time plus EARNED 6 years Work-Time equal 29 years and certainly calculate over HALF his time served coward the sentence for release to parole as mandated by the Statutes to trigger Scott's release to parole. (See Exhibit "E" Time Calculation Sheet 10/17/2014)(Const.Amend- 13- 14- 5-)(V.T.CA.§508.145-§508.149).
Scott avers that he is protected by the U.S. 13 Const. Amend-
from arbitrarily abrogated punishment of "Involuntary Servitude" "EXCEPT [AS] A PUNISHMENT" towit the 371 Court nor the V-T-CA. §508-145-§508.149 specifically adress but instead clearly exact through V-T-CA. §497.002(2) there TDCJ clearly define it's understanding of Scott's "LABOR"(EARNED Work-Time) as ((2)"Reduce Department Cost---" a phrase enducted into law of the under standing in common and law lanquaqe to equal "money" which is the only understanding of a thinq that could reduce"cost''; thus renderinq Scott's EARNED Work-Time equal to the same and under the law of §497-002(2) by it's own language and definition creates Scott's "liberty interest" in his Work-Time and sets §508-145-§508.149 contrary to §497-002(2) where Scott would have a vested "liberty interest" in his Work, and Good-Time by virtue of §508.145-§508-149 "denying" Scott REVIEW formula of his Good- Time and Flat-Time equalling that review thus Scott's Good-Time by virtue of (3q) language of the Statutes place Scott's Good- Time into "new" meaning absent application toward "REVIEW" and Scott's Work-Time given "new" meaning through law of §497-002(2) as "reducinq cost for TDCJ" the Statute itself "creating" Scott's liberty interest in h is EARNED Work-Time'CAUSE an absurd outcome for Scott's EARNED Work-Time and Good-Time respectively as they relate to a calculated mandate to release on parole since the Statutes at issue mandate "only" release to parole or Maximum Sentence Date.
Scott avers that since he can "only" release from TDCJ by (two) mechanisms enacted by the Statutes (serve his entire sentence to the maximum allowed bv lav/) or (parole) when certain enume rated factors triqqer release to parole- (see TDCJ-Offender Orientation Handbook pg- 56 l-(c-) ".--These offenders must- be released on parole- or on their maximum expiration dates.") this act authorized by §508.145-§508.149 (3g) catagory denvinq Scott Const. Amend. 14 Due Process of his EARNED Good-Time and
Work-Time since the Statutes at issue (§508-145-§508.149 and §497.002(2)) are. certainly qivino specific value to Scott's W rk-Time in §4^?.002(2) and his Good-Time in §508 -145-§:)03.149 Where s£>4cific language dl the" "Statute -his Gds<S-TiiAe IS NOT to be considered coward his release to parole and Fiat-Time served to the half of the sentence is the only trigger to release* Scott's Good-Time is. specific by. the language of the Statute as being a value and thus creating Scott's liberty interest in both Good-Time by virtue of §508 .145-§ 508.149. and Work-Time by virtue Of §497.002(2) respectively.
Scott avers that Good-Time and Work-Time like Flat-Time have for the entire existance of TDC/TDGJ been defined as awards EARNED towards reduction of time spent in TDC/TDCJ and thus absent having "ever" been specific towards any other privilege or benefit otherthan "REVIEW" for parole under (Discretionary Mandatory Supervision HouseBili 1433 cases) specifically denied Scott pursuant to §503.145-§508.149 (3g.)) his Work and Good Time Credits are thus rendered by virtue of the Statutes "new" definition reverting back to "liberty interest" value and protected by the 14th Const. Amend due process.(see TDCJ Handbook pg. 54. - 60. 70th Leg.-75th Leg.);(VTCA §508.145-§508.149) (§497.002(2).);
(Const.Amend.14,13 -5).
Scott avers that the State of Texas is not authorized to
"enact" or "enforce" any law that would deprive, Scott of his liberty or property but by virtue of the due course of law.(14 Const.Amend.), therefore Scott equally avers that the State of Texas through it's Legislative bodies has enacted and enforced 1aws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution 14 and are un authorized by the same causing Scott to suffer arbitrary abrogated punishment by virtue of the §508.145-§508.149 laws created by
Texas Legislators and enforced by TDCJ.(Const-Amend.14.13,5)(§508 -145-§508.149).
(4. )
Scott avers that he has met the bruden of proving that his claims of the Statutes at issue being unconstitutional on their faces and as they are applied to Scott's Work and Good Time Credits being legally abragated :towards his release to parole is clear in the language of the Statutes themselves and the mandated acts they enforce causing Scott's suffering and damage of illegal restraint thus Scott should be Granted 'relief from the Honorable Court Ordering the issue of habeas corpus to his Respondents to deliver Scott to the jurisdictional^court of authority to ascertain if and why Scott is by virtue of the Statutes at issue illegally restrained.(See §508.145-§508.149); (§497.002(2));(Const.Amend. 14. 13. 5);(TDCJ-Handbook pg. 54.- 60. 70th-75 Legislatures) respectively.
PRAYER.
Scott PRAYS that the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas GRANT him relief- Ordering issue of a writ of habeas corpus to the Respondents instructing them to deliver Scott t-o a specified jurisdictional court to ascertain whether Scott is in fact by virtue of the Statutes §508.145-:508.149(3g) held in illegal restraint of h is liberty and denied his rights under the U.S. Constitution to due process of his Work and Good Time Credits for release on parole from TDCJ,(see U.S. Const. Amend. 14. 13 .5) (§508.145-§508-149);(TDCJ-Gffender Orientation Handbook pg. 54.-60-; 70th-75ch Legislature);(§497.002(2)).
UNSWORN DECLARATION
Scott, Declares he is the Movant in this action and swears under penalty of perjury that the information in th is action is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, and attest to the same siging this J^^^ay of Novembe-B-y 2014.
GERY L COTT PRO 3c;
EXHIBIT "F"
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CUSTODIAN OF OFFENDER RECORDS TIME CREDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION DATED 11/10/2014
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CUSTODIAN OF OFFENDER RECORDS TIME CREDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION
Offender Name : SCOTT.GERY LEE TDCJ# : 01123905
Offender Location R1
You filed a request for correction of time credited toward the completion of your sentence pursuant to the Department's internal time credit dispute resolution process to address time credit calculation error complaints.
Your request for correction of calculation of the time credit earned toward completion of your sentence was received by the Custodian of Offender Records on 9/8/2014 • Pursuant to Section 501.0081 of the Texas Government Code, the Custodian of Offender Records is required to issue a finding in an attempt to resolve the complaint.
The Custodian of Offender Records issues the following finding regarding your complaint:.
injury to a child w/ a deadly weapon is a 3g offense. You have to serve 50% of your time on that sentence before coming up for parole. You are not parole eligible until 8-11-2019
If you are dissatisfied with this response from the Custodian of Offender Records, you may contact State Counsel for futher assistance.
This concludes the administrative processing of this complaint by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
DATE: 11/10/2014
/
SIGNATURE: "T^ %„J,.
S"
TITLE: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR CLASSIFICATION AND RECORDS
ADDRESS: TDCJ CLASSIFICATION AND RECORDS OFFICE BOT WAREHOUSE
P.O. BOX 99
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77342
Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk of the Court Louise) Pearson, P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin1, Texas 78711 COURT OF CRMMAL APPEALS
November 26, 2014 04 20tt
Dear Clerk: ^bel Acosta, Clerk Please bring this (Petitioner's Reply to State's Reply to Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus) C-371-010342-0826520-D; to the attention of the Court for filing as amended to Scott's "original" application for Writ of habeas corpus 11.07 from the 371 Judicial Court of I Tarrant County Tx. filed as aforementioned on November 17, 2014 by Clerk of the said Tarrant County Court.,(Thomas A. Wilder).
Please NOTE that a "copy" of this action and request of the Court pof Criminal Appeals of Texas has been sent to the 371 Judicial Court Clerk for processing through District Attorney Joe Shannon Jr. and the Court thereto.
Thank you for any and all consideration into this matter
Ramsey One unit 1100 F. M. 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583
cc:GLS.'
CAUSE NO. C-371-010342-0826520-D
EX PARTE § IN THE COURT § OF CRIMINAL APPEALS GERY LEE SCOTT § OF TEXAS
j PETITIONER'S REPLY TO JSTATE'S REPLY. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS !
COMES NOW, Gery Lee Scott, hereinafter,(Scott), in answer
to State's Reply to his Petition for Habeas Corpus relief and shows that the 371ST Judicial Court through Criminal District
Attorney of Tarrant County, Texas mistakenly presents his Claims | ' ' '
(OUT OF CONTEXT) in a calculated effort to misconstrue the facts
i
at issue which are: (1.) the Statutes (V.T.C.A. §508.145-§508.
I
149 ARE unconstitutional on their faces and as they are applied
to Scott's (ILLEGAL RESTRAINT) where they allow arbitrary abro
gation of h is Work and Good-Time Credits, a "Liberty Interest"
i'
created by virtue of the language of the Statutes(§508.145-§508.
149) and defined in part in .§497.002(2) as afore demonstrated (See
Scott's "original' 11.07 and Memorandum in Support of Ground
i
One) Const. Amend. 5., 14.) (§508.145-§508.149).
j
The Case in Brief/Procedural History:
The Applicant concedes to (all) History entry data (EXCEPT):
(1.) Scott had no knowledge that a Deadly Weapon Finding had
j
. been) applied to h is case CR-0826520-D and;
i ' ' v (2.) Scott avers that the last (2) two lines of the first page
j
of the State's Reply is "Absent" completion and does NOT
depict what, he has alleged that his sentence had been:,;
(a.)j "The applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus on July 13, 2012, alleging that his sentence had been-.. "
which does not follow completion on the next page or anywhere else in the State's Brief/Procedural History therefore Scott respectfully denies alligations (1.) and (2.).
Discussion:
Scott has a right to release based on his argument that the
Statute(s) §508.145-§508.149 create his liberty interest within his Good and Work-Time where it is clear that his (3g) catagory
i
by virtue of the language of the Statue "WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF . GOOD CONDUCT TIME" sets a value on.Scott's Good-Time and solidifies that value by DENYING application of MANDATORY SUPERVISION
and DISCRETIONARY MANDATORY SUPERVISION (formulas) which take 1 I " Scott's Good-Time and Work-Time Credits out of the catagory |
formula of "REVIEW" which frees up Scott's Good-Time and Work-
Time tio "new" meaning, a Statute "created" Liberty Interest protected by the U.S. Constitution 14 Due Process of Scott's
EARNED Good-Time and Work-Time applied toward his release to parole,a catagory NOT unfamiliar to TDCJ since it's Mandatory
Supervision operates on trie "exact" same practice of "mandatory"
i
release on parole without Board of Pardons and Paroles inter
vention or discretion where enumerated factors mandate release to minimum discharge dates.
Scot t avers that his "ONE" Claim is that the §508.145 - §508.
149are "unconstitutional" contrary to the U.S. and Texas Constitu- tions, (see Const.Amend.14,5.);(Tx.Const- 1.04[2][3]);(§508.
145-§508.149);(see also,Tx.Crim.App.1957."In determining if a denial of due process has occurred, Court of Criminal Appeals will arrive at a conclusion.by an independent examination of the undisputed facts." Ex parte Roberts, 307 S.W,2d 94, 165 Tx.Crim.
353.," );(See Teaguw v. Quarterman 482 F.3d 769,777-80 (5th Cir.
2007|) ;(Holding that, deprivation of any amount of good time is a liberty deprivation, rejecting argument that good time loss can be de minimis), finally, (See Scott's C-371-010342-0826520-D 11.07 habeas corpus filed November 17, 2014-Memorandum In Support Ground One page 1. - 10. ) .
A. Right to Mandatory Supervision Release:
Scott concedes no entitlement to Mandatory Supervision Release Tex.Gov1t code §508.149(3g) catagory language of the statute on Scott's Charge(injury to a child),
B. Right to Parole Release:
.i .
ScOjtt avers that he has a right to parole release per .the
Statuted formula mandating One-Half of his sentence be served
I
Flat Time without consideration of Good-Time Credits, where
j
WITHOUT his Good-Time and Work-Time Credits applied legally
toward his release on parole the Statuted language creates obsurd results denying Scott's liberty Interest Good-Time and Work-Time abrogated to the Half-Time of h is sentence served.
In short the Statutes at issue have no authority in law where
they, |(§508.145-§508.149) arbitrarily abrogate Scott's liberty
I
interest Good-Time and Work-Time and on it's face is contrary
to the U.S. and Texas Constitutions denying and depriving Scott's due process of law. ("If a Liberty Interest is "created" by the Statute, due process requires nortice and meaningful opportunity
to be| heard" La Chance v. Erickson, 522, U.S. 262,266(1993))
i
and more clearly defining; C.A.5(Tex.)2001. "As to state prison inmate's liberty interests arising from state law as opposed to :Due Process clause itself, only those State-Created Sub stantive interests that inevitably affedct duration of prisoner's sentence may qualify for protection under Clause" U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend.14. and; Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423.;
TexJApp.-Houston[14th Dist.]1990. Prison regulation containing "substantive predicates" or criteria wh i.ch serve to limit discretion of prison officials, and wh ich also contains explicitly mandatory language or specific directives mandating a particular outcome when the regulation's criteria are present, CREATES AN ENFORCEABLE LIBERTY INTEREST." U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend.14. Johnson v. Lynaugh, 800 S.W.2d 936, writ granted and writ denied, and writ withdrawn-
Scott thus avers strongly that where the Statutes §508.145-
§508.149 are unconstitutional and violate Scott's due process,
i
(Const.Amend.14.),. they throughout are void of authority to
enforce Tex.Gov'tCode §508.149(a)(1) and thus Scott's Statute
"created" liberty interest Good-Time and Work-Time are arbitrarily
i
abrogated by virtue of the Statute thus violating Scott's Const-
Amend. 14 depriving h im of his liberty vestedn in his Good-Time
processed along with his Work-Time toward h is release to parole.
(See Tex.App.-Austin 1997. "Mandatory language of Statute that prisoner shall be released on parole unless certain enumerated factors are found "creates" presumption, and, therefore, constitutionally protected expectation of release. U.S.C.A.
Conbt.Amend.14; Vernon's Ann. Tex.Const. Art -1,§§17,19. ; Bohannan v. ^Texas' Board of Criminal Justice, 942, S.w. 2d 113, rehearing overruled, and writ denied.)
'i '' Scott avers that by virtue of the Statutes at issue his release
to parole on Half h is sentence served can "only"11 be legal where the Statutes §508.145-§508.149 abrogate Scott's Good and Y- Work Time Credits as Statute created liberty interest Creditsr and hus calculate toward :. his release to parole the same as prior formula of Good-Time Flat-time calculated toward release on prorjected release date(minimum Release Date). (See TDCJ Orieni
tation Handbook pg-., 56. (c. )(1.) (a.)( c.) "Of fenders under this law who have their parole'denied will be reelased to Mandatory Super vision on their Projected Release Dates(minimum expiration dates).
and ("Tex.App,Beaumont 2006. "As an intermediate appellate court, Court of Appeals cannot reject the most compelling inter pretation of s tat utory language, for a fair interpretation, even if Court of Appeals preferred as a matter of policy the result yielded by the broader interpretation. Griggs v. Triple S. Indus. Corp.,-197 S.W.3d 408.")
Conclusion:
The Applicant is being "Illegally Restrained" of h is liberty where due to §508.145-§508.149 arbitrarily abrogating h is Good- Time and Work-Time Credits toward h is release to parole he is denied due process of law (Const.Amend.14), since his credits towards h is release only effect his time served in TDCJ, not the actual length of sentence the courts imposed on him. (See
TDCJ-Offender Orientation HandBook pg. 56.C.(1.)(c)"These Offenders "MUST" be released on parole, or on their maximum expiration dates."'
pg. 60. (g.) "Sentences for offenses occurring on or after 9-
1-96 WILL NOT be considered for Mandatory Super vision or Discretionary Mandatory Supervision, if the offender has ever been convicted of: Injury to a child..." / pq 56 (C )(1.)(c)"-- -Any good time earned.by these offenders COUNTS TOWARD PAROLE ELIGIBILITY ONLY..."
Scott avering no clearer": meaning effecuated by the Statute's Language can be taken, from "COUNTS TOWARD PAROLE ELIGIBILITY"
except that Scott when certain enumerated factors exist by virtue of the Statutes is is "parole eligible" as earned by his Good-
Time and Work-Time calculated toward his parole.
Scott thus avers that where absent his parole eligibility
and release to parole does not occur his due process is violated by virtue, of the Statutes first creating his liberty interest in his Good-Time and Work-Time respectively and then contrary
to it's creation of his liberty interest the very same Statute denies legal abrogation of h is Good and Work Time toward his his time served to Half h is Sentence to release on parole. (See Const. Amend. 14. 5.) (Scott's Original Application for habeas corpus 11.07 Memorandum in Support of Ground One).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Scott PRAYS that the Court of Criminal Appeals amend this (Petitioner's Reply to; State's Reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) to Scott's original "Memorandum In Support of Ground One of Scott's 11.07 Writ and recognize Scott's filings as not to be construed as that of 'a skilled attorney but a layman of the' law, and find in Scott's favor that the Statutes at issue in his ONE Claim of them being in violation of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions as presented throughout Scott's demonstrations and facts supporting the same DO violate Scott's due process of his Good and Work Time credits and thus have no authority in law as applied to Scott's to hold him under conditions of §508.145-§508.149 respectively. Scott also request of the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, recognize TDCJ and law V.T.C.A. Gov't Code §497.002(2) define on the one hand TDCJ's definition of inmate labor(work) as reducing cost, as defined by the Statute and on the other hand Scott's earned property joined with his Good-Time to apply without considerstion to eligibility to release on parole under the §508.145-§508.149 (3g) application thus contrary to it's own language meaning denying Scott's liberty interest in his Earned Work and Good-Time alike.(Const.Amend.14, 5.) Scott by virtue of these violations should be afforded relief he is
requesting ,or in the alternative corrective action taken by the court.
Respefctfully Submitted,
PRO SE
UNSWORN DECLARATION
I, GERY LEE SCOTT, DO DECLARE, that the information within this
action is True and Correct to the best of his knowledge and attest to the sqme under penalty of perjury this 26th Day of November, 2014 as signed to below.
SCOTT"PRO SE
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE.
I., GERY LEE SCOTT, DO Certify that a copy of this action has been sent post prepaid to the 371st Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas at the address of; JOE SHANNON, JR., District Attorney, 400:E. Belknap. St., Fort Worth, Texas 76196- 0201 placed in the U.S. Mail on Ramsey^One Unit November 26, 2014 and signed to the same below.
,E"E SCOTT^PRO SE
Ramsey OneJ Unit
TDCJ-ID#1123905
1100 F.M. 655
Rosharon, Texas 77583
cc:GLS.