(3.) 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
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.).
(1.) 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),
(2.) 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
(3.) 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 Orien- i
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).
(4.) 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
(5.) 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.
(6.) Respefctfully Submitted,
PRO SE
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
(7.)