Silva, Gabriel

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 18, 2015
• Docket: WR-62,930-04
• Status: Published

Opinion

@,/24,@!"5@“01/

C - 4 - 010619 - 0833761 - B

EX PARTE `_ 4 |N THE CR||\/||NAL D|STR|CT

` __-_. _, ._ f _ _ _ § `_ l ., __j: ,_"‘COURTNO _49F GABR|EL`$`|L\?A' ’ " ` ' _ ' ' ` TARRANTcouNTY, TE)<`AS RECElvEDaN

APPLchNT's WRHTEN osJECTIONS COURT OF CRH\/I|NAL APPEALS sTATEs RESPONSE To APPL|cATloN FOR WR|T DE HABEAS coRPus

-`DEC 1 `

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SA|D COURT: 8 2015 COMES NOW GABR|EL S|LVA, APPL|CANT PRO SE, AND F|LES TH|S H|S WR|TTEN OBJECTIONS TO

THE STATES RESPONSE TO H|S APPL|CAT|ON FOR WR|T OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND WOULD SHOW UNTO

THE couRT THEREOF: Abe| Acosta, C|erk

SPEAC|AL STATEMENT TO THE COURT APPL|CANT IS PROCEED|NG |N TH|S ACT|ON PRO-SE, W|THOUT THE ASS|STANCE OF PROFESS|ONAL COUNSEL, DUE TO H|S lNDlGENCY. ACCORD|NGLY, APPL|CANT |NVOKES THE STANDARD OF REV|EW AS ESTABL|SHED BY THE UN|TED STATES SUPRE|\/lE COURT |N HA|NES VS. KERNES, 404 U.S. 519, 52 S.Ct. 594 (1972) WHERE|N THE COURT ASSERTED THAT ”PLEAD|NGS OF PRO-SE LlTlGANTS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED LlBERALLY AND HELD TO LESS STR|NGENT STANDARDS THAN FORN|AL PLEAD|NGS DRAFTED BY PROFESS|ONAL LAWYERS".

HlsToRY 0F THE cAsE

THE APPL\cANT GABR|EL s\LvA ("APPLchNT") WAS coNvlcTED BY A JuRY oF THE FleT DEGREE FELoNY OFFENSE 0F AGGRAVATED ROBBERY W\TH A DEADLY v\/EAPON, T0- W\T A KN|FE 0R AN omEcT uNKNOWN T0 THE GRAND JURY, 0N 5EPTEMBER 27, 2002. lN cAusE N0 08337610 APPLchNT PLED TRuE T0 THE REPEAT oFFENDER NoTlcE AND THE TRlAL couRT AssEssED PuleHMENT AT TH\RTY- FlvE vEARS coNFlNEMENT m THE TE)

THE SECOND cOuRT 0F APPEALS AFFlRl\/\ED THE TRlAL couRT JUDGEMENT ON JANUARY 29, 2004, sEE levA \/5. sTATE Nos. 02 - 02 - 425 - cR, 02 - 0`2 - 426--cR 2004 WL 177868 (TEX. APP. FORT WORTH JAN 29, 2004, PET. REF'D) (NoT DESlGNATED FOR PuBLchTlON).

APPLchNT'S FleT APPLchTlON FoR WRIT 0F HABEAS coRPus WAS DENlED W\THouT WRHTEN oRDER 0N TR\AL couRTs FlNDlNGs W|THOUT A HEAR|NG 0N NovEMBER 23, 2005. sEE E)< PARTE levA, No. WR - 62, 930 - 01. c - 4 - 007233 - 0833761 - A (TE)<. cRn\/l. APP. Nov 23, 2005 (WH|TE cARDy `APPL`chNT's ALLEGATlONS " " " “ " ' " °"“"""‘ ’

APPL|CANT ALLEGES Hls CONFINEMENT ls lLLEGAL BEcAuSE H\s sENTENcE ls lLLEGAL AND n\/IPROPER APPLchNT's cLAn\/l 0F AN lLLEGAL sENTENcE ls coGleABLE lN A WR|T 0F HABEAS coRPUS. AN lLLEGAL sENTl-:NCE ls 0NE THAT as NOT AuTHoRleD BY LAW. THEREFORE A sENTENcE THAT ns ouTleE THE RANGE 0F PuNlSHMENT 0R NOT AuTHORleD BY LAW ls coNs\DERED lLLEGAL. MleLL \/5. sTATE 119 s.W. 30. 804, 806 (T)<. cRn\/\. APP 2003) E)< PARTE BERK, 922 s.v\/.20.181,182 (TE)<. cRu\/l. APP 1996). THEREFoRE APPLchNT's sENTENcE MUST BE W|Tle THE PuleHMENT RANGE uNDER \/\/chH HE WAS ADMON:SHED 4ND $ENTENCED. SEE E)< PARTE PARROTr, 396 5. W 30 531- 533 (TEX CRn\/\ APP. 2013) sEE ALso lvanLL vs sTATE 119 s W 30 AT 806..."1N FACTTHERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTH\NG lN TE)

CR||\/||NAL CASE FRO|\/| NOT|C|NG AND CORRECT|NG AN |LLEGAL SENTENCE NO |\/|/-\TFER WHEN OR HOW THE REL|EF WAS SOUGHT.

LAW AND FACTS

THE STATE D|STR|CT ATFORNEY CLA||\/lS APPL|CANT'S WR|T APPL|CAT|ON lS BARRRED BY 11.07 SEC. 4 l HOWEVER APPL|CANT DOES NOT CHALLENGE H|S CONV|CT|ON BUT |LLEGAL SENTENCE |N THE |NSTANT WR|T APPL|CAT|ON, APPL|CANT CHALLENGES PAROLE lSSUES. THE'COURT OF CR|I\/||NAL APPEALS ADDRESSED TH|S |SSUE |N EX PARTE AND EX PARTE EVANS, 964 S.W. ZD. 643, 647 (TEX. CR||\/|.APP.1998)THlS COURT HELD: BOTH THE DEF|N|T|ON OF CONV|CT|ON AND THE COURT'S CASE LAW REGARD|NG WR|T APLL|CAT|ON LED THE COURT TO THE CONSLUS|ON THAT THE PROCEDUR/-\L BAR OF ART. 11.07 SEC. 4 IS Ll|\/||TED TO |NSTANCES lN WH|CH THE |N|T|AL APPL|CAT|ON RA|SED CLA||\/|S REGARD|NG THE VAL|D|TY OF THE PROSECUT|ON OR/ JUDG|\/IENT OF GU|LT.

|T DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAH\/|S REGARD|NG |\/|ATTERS SUCH AS |LLEG/-\L SENTENCE OR PAROLE. AS A RESULT TH|S APPL|CAT|ON DOES NOT |NVOLVE A CLA||\/| WH|CH CHALLENGES THE "CONV|CTION" W|TH|N THE |\/|EAN|NG OF ART|CLE 11.07 SEC. 4 FOR THE ABOVE AND FOREGO|NG REASONS APPL|CANT ASSERTS TH|S COURT H/-\S THE AUTHOR|TY TO ADDRESS THE |SSUES |N H|S WR|T APPL|CAT|ON.

THE STATE'S ATTORNEY HAS NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE CLA||\/|S |N THE APPL|CANT'S 11.07 AND A |LLEGAL SENTENCE CAN BE RA|SED AT ANYT||\/|E. SEE GONZALES VS. STATE 187 S.W. 3D. 166 (TX. . APP. WACO 2006) STATE VS. DUDLEY 223 S.W. BD. 717 (TEX. APP. TYLER 2007) "

GROUND OF ERROR NO. 2

APPL|CANT CONTENDS THERE |S A CONFL|CT BETWEEN THE ORAL PRONOUNCE|\/IENT BY THE JUDGE AT THE PUN|SHMENT HEAR|NG AND JURY VERD|CT.

APPL|CANT CONTENDS THAT THE TR|AL JUDGE HONORABLE CL|FFORD DAV|S NEVER l\/|ADE AN EXPRESS DETERI\/l|NAT|ON THAT A DEADLY WEAPON WAS USED OR EXH|B\TED BY APPL|CANT DUR|NG THE COI\/ll\/||SS|ON OF THE OFFENSE AT BAR, AND TH|S |S CLEAR ON THE FACE OF THE TR|AL RECORD WHEN THE JUDGE SA|D SO BY H|S’OWN F|ND|NGS OF GU|LT AT THE PUN|SH|V|ENT HEAR|NG ON NOV 22, 2002(SEE COURT REPORTERS VOLUl\/|E 7. PAGES 31-32 ALL) AND EVEN EXPOUNDED AS TO H|S RAT|ONABLE FOR SA|D PUN|SHl\/|ENT BUT W|THOUT EVER |\/lENT!ON|NG APPL|CANTS USE OR EXH|B|T|ON OF STATE'S UNFOUNDED, UNSEEN, THEORET|CAL, DE|\/\ONSTRAT|VE, LOCK BLADE KN|FE. STATE EXH!B|T #37 WH|CH |5 NOT PER SE A DEADLY WEAPON ACCORD|NG TO CONSISTENT TEXAS PENAL CODES 1.07 (17) (A) (B) OR CASE LAW. THE LAW |ND|CATES |N S|TUAT|ONS SUCH AS APPL|CANTS, WHEN THE ORALJUDGE|\/|ENT AND WR|TTEN ARE |N CONFL|CT THE ORAL CONTROLS ESPEC|ALLY WHEN CONS|DER|NG ”JUD|C\AL ERROR". HOWEVER, AJUDGE|\/|ENT [\/|AY BE ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC |F |T WAS |N FACT "RENDERED" BUT NOT RECORDED AT AN EARL|ER T||\/|E. SEE JONES VS. STATE 795 S.W. 2D. 199 - 200 (TEX. CR|I\/l. APP. 1990) AND ONCE A SENTENCE |5 PRONOUNCED |N OPEN COURT |T COULDN'T BE |NCREASED BY A LATER WR|TTEN JUDGEMENT WH|CH lS l\/lERELY THE WR|Tl'EN E|\/lBOD||\/lENT AND DECLARAT|ON OF THAT ORAL PRONOUNCEl\/|ENT". NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS ARE NOT APPROPR|ATE TO ADDRESS JUD|C|AL ERRORS, ERRORS THAT ARE THE PRODUCT OF JUD|C|AL REASON|NG OR DETER|\/||NAT|ONS. A NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGEl\/IENT REQU|RES THAT THERE BE PROOF THAT THE PROPOSED SEN:|'ENCE WAS ACTUALLY RENDERED AT AN EARL|ER Tl|\/lE BUT THAT THE WR|TTEN JUDGEI\/\ENT FA|LS TO REFLECT lT. SEEI STATE DUDLEY 223 S.W. 30. 717 - 722 (2007) SEE: ALSO CONCURR|NG OP|N|ON AT 55 S.W. ?>D. 625 74 S.W.3D.166)" A JUDGEN|ENT NUNC PRO TUNC |\/|AY CORRECT ONLY CLER|CAL ERRORS |N A JUDGEl\/IENT, NOT JUD|C|AL ERRORS OR Ol\/I|SS|ONS; CLER|CAL ERRORS |\/|AY BE CORRECTED BY ORDER OF NUNC PRO TUNC BUT NOT ONES THAT RESULT FRO|\/| JUD\C|AL REASON\NG OR DETER|\A|NAT|ON". SI\/||TH VS. STATE 15 S.W. 3D. 294 - 299 A "CLER|CAL ERROR" COULD BE CORRECTED BY NUNC PRO TUNC |N WH|CH NO JUD|C|AL REASON|NG CONTR!BUTED

a

To lTS ENTRY AND FOR Sol\/IE'REASON WASN'T ENTERED lN THE RECORD AT THE PROPER TlME. NUNC PRO TuNc ORDERS ARE NOT APPRoPRlATE TO ADDRESS JuchlAL ERRORS" THAT ARE THE PRODUCT OF JuchlAL REASON|NG OR DETERM|NAT|ONS" SEE:'STATE vS. POSEY 300 S.W. 30. 239 (2009) WHEN A TR|AL JUDGE ACTS PURSUANT To A FALSE oR MlsTAKEN CONCEPT|ON OR APPLchTlON 0F THE LAW SUCH ls ”JuDlClAL ERROR" NOT cLERlCAL. _

lN THE :NSTANT CASE AT BAR AND LEGAL THEORET|CAL JUXTAPOslTlON T0 "POLK" AS ESPOuSED lN`FANNlELvS. sTATE, 73 S.W. 3'0. 557, 559 - 560 (2002). “AN EXPRESS DETERM|NAT|QN BY THE TR|ER OF FACT THATA DEADLY v\/EAPON v\/As uSED 0R EXH|B\TED DURING THE col\/n\/usslor\l 0F THE OFFENSE as NECESSARY FOR THE ENTRY OF AND AFF|RMATl\/E F|ND|NG OF THE uSE OF A DEADLY WEAPoN". POLI< \/S. sTATE, 693 S.W. 20. 391 - 396 (TEX. CRn\/\. APP. 14TH DlsT HOUSTON 1990 PET. REF'D, (HOLDS TR|AL COURT$ F|ND|NG 06 GulLT DoEs NOT AMOUNT T0 AFF¢RMATNE F|ND\NG THAT DEFENDANT usED A DEADLY v\/EAPON). HERE lN APPLchNT le\/A's cASE_ WHEN lN THE E\/ENT OF cONFLlCT BETWEEN A DlSTRlcT cOuRTS ORAL JUDGEMENT AND WR|TTEN ORDER \N CRll\/HNAL PROSECUT|ONS, THE ORAL JuDGEl\/\ENT cONTROLS AND PRE\/AlLS sEE u.$. vs. F30. 499 (TEX. 2001)

TH|S RULE OF LAW ls ALSO ESPOUSED lN DONO\/AN VS. sTATE 232 s.\A/. 30. 192 (2007) STATlNG, "THE TR|AL couRT l\/lusT PRONOUNCE A DEFENDANTS SENTENCE 0RALLY1N Hls PRESENCE BECAUSE THE WR|TTEN JuDGEl\/\ENT ls l\/IERELV THE EMBOD\MENT 0F THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT. AND 50 WHEN THE WR|TTEN JuDGEl\/\ENT AND ORALJuDGEMENT ARE lN coNFL\cT THE oRAL PRONOuNcEl\/lENT cONTRoLs". sEE ALSO MoRFlN \/s. sTATE 34 s.vv. 30. 664 (T)<. APP. SAN ANTON¢o 2000) THESE cOURTS HAVE ALL CONS;STENTLV HELD WHEN THERE ls A vARlATlON FRol\/l THE ORAL PRONouNcEl\/lENT 0F sENTENCE AND THE WRlTrEN l\/lEl\/lORlAleATlON THE oRAL PRONOuNCEl\/lENT cONTROLs. AND slNcE THE Tll\/IE FOR APPEAL BEG|NS WHEN THE sENTENCE ls n\/lPOSED 0R SUSPENDED lN OPEN COURT THEN THls ls GBVIOUSLY THE APPEALABLE E\/ENT WHlCH cAN BE cHALLENGED. THE SENTENCE ls THE lLLEGAL PART 0F THE JUDGEMENT; W|TH THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE THE cOuRT ESSENTlALLY BREATH§S L\FE lNTO THE sENTENCE AND JUDGEl\/\ENT AND \5 cATALYST 0F WchH ENABLES ExEcuTcON 0F THE JuDGEl\/\ENT. sTOKES VS. sTATE 688 S.W. 20. 539_

GROUND OF ERROR NO.3

APPL|CANT ASSERTS HE |S ACTUALLY |NNOCENT OF THE DEADLY WE/-\PON F|ND|NG AND TDCJ AND THE TR|AL COURT ARE |N ERROR |N REQU|R|NG APPL|CANT TO SERVE ONE HALF OF H|S SENTENCE BEFORE BECOI\/llNG EL|G\BLE FOR PAROLE.

APPL|CANT CONTENDS THAT THE OFF|CIALS AT TDCJ AND THE TR|AL COURT OFF|C|ALS ARE |N ERROR |N REQU|R|NG S|LVA TO HAVE TO SERVE ONE HALF OF H|_S SENTENCE BEFORE HE |S EL|G|BLE FORE PAROL_E. APPL|CANT FEELS HE HAS SHOWN SUFF|C|ENT4 FACTS TO SUPPORT PR|I\/lA FAC|E CLA||\/| OF ACTUAL |NNOCENCE OF THE DEADLY WEAPON F|ND|NG |N H|S ORAL PRONOUNCEI\/IENT |N OPEN COURT. (SEE COURT REPORTERS RECORD VOLUI\/|E 7. Pg$. 31-32 ALL). THE COURT lN EX PARTE BROOKS 219 S.W. 3D. 396 (TEX. CRH\/l. APP. 2007) HELD: |N FOOTNOTE TWO. THE \ND|CT|\/IENT ALLEGED THAT BROOKS USED A DEADLY WEAPON. THE JURY FOUND Hl|\/l NOT GU|LTY OF THE DEADLY WEAPON F|ND|NG FOOT NOTE 7. SEE NIURRY VS. CARR|ER 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639 91 L.Ed 2D. 397 (1986). THE CARR|ER STANDARD REQU|RES THE HABEAS PET|T|ONER SHOW THAT A CONST|TUT|ONAL V|OLAT|ON HAS RESULTED |N THE CONV|CT|ON OF ONE WHO |S ACTUA_LLY |NNOCENT TO ESTABL|SH THE REQU|S|TE PROBAB|L|TY, THE PET|T|ONER |\/IUST SHOW THAT |T |S |\/IORE L|KELY THAN NOT THAT NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD'VE CONV|CTED Hl|\/l |N L|GHT OF THE NEW E\/|DENCE. SCHLUP 513 U.S. AT 327, 115 S.Ct 851 SAWYER VS. WH|TLY, 505 U.S. 333, 112 5 Ct. 2514 120 L. ED. 2D. 269 (1992). (HOLD|NG THAT A HABEAS PET|T|ONER |\/lUSH SHOW BY CLEAR AND CONV|NC|NG EV|DENCE, THAT BUT FOR A CONST|TUT\ONAL V|OLAT|ON, NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD HAVE THE PET|T|ON EL|G|BLE FOR

cERTlFchTE 0F sER\/lcE l, cERTlFY THAT A TRUE AND cORREcT cOPY 06 THE FOREGO|NG HAS BEEN sER\/ED 0N THE STAT'S DlsTRlcT AUORNEY umw DAY OF // 20 /’F_BY PLAC|NG SAME \N THE us MA\L PosTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED As FOLLOWS;

TOZ C|NDY DUTRA POST CONV|CT|ON LEGAL SECRETARY

TARRANT COUNTY D|STR|CT CLERK OFF|CE

THE DEATH PENALY). APPL|CANT ASSERTS HE IS ACTUALL_Y |NNOCENT OF THE DEADLY WEAPON F|ND|NG ENHANCEl\/|ENT, THAT THE TR|AL OFF|C|ALS ARE HOLD|NG AGA|NST APPL|CANT.

PRAYER FOR REL|EF WHEREFORE, APPL"chNT PRAY$ THls HoNoRABLE couRT ADDRESS THE ME'R\TS 0F THE cLA\l\/\s AND lssuEs, AND 0RDER THAT THE TR|ALCOURT'S JuDGEl\/\ENT BE REFORMED T0 REFLECT THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT As lN THE TR|AL couRT RECORD AND APPO\NT couNsEL FOR THE APPLlCANT.

RESPECTFULLY SUB|\/l|TTEDI

GABR|EL S|LVA #1137714

|\/l. W. |\/||CHAEL UN|T " 2664 F|\/l. 2054

M TENN. coLoNv, Tx 75886 DoNETHlSQMDAY 0F //_- 2015

|N|\/|ATE DECLARAT|ON |, GABR|EL S|LVA, #1137714 AND |Nl\/|ATE |N THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CR|I\/|lNAL JUST|CE- CORRECT|ONAL D\VlS|ON AT THE |\/|. W. |\/l|CHAEL UN|T LOCATED |N ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 2664 F|\/|. 2054 TENN. COLONY, TEXAS 75886 DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THE ABOVE AND FOREGO|NG |S TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF l\/IY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE PERSUAN_T TO TX. C|V. P. RE|\/|. CODE BZ. 001-132-003

E)