Simon, Armando, WR-26,427-04

Background

Petitioner Armando Simon, a registered sex-offender with a 1985 sexual-assault conviction, was convicted after a 2011 jury trial for failure to register a change of address (Cause No. 2010‑CR‑2132); punishment assessed as 2 years but probated for 10 years.
Facts in dispute: Simon asserts he was homeless/sleeping in car, told Officer Allen he was homeless, and that witnesses (landlord Tina Hernandez and Officer Curtis Hermosillo) gave false or inconsistent accounts about when/where he moved.
Defense counsel and pro se filings raised numerous constitutional and evidentiary objections at trial and on appeal; the 4th Court of Appeals affirmed, and Simon’s PDR to the Court of Criminal Appeals was denied. Federal §2254 was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Simon alleges prosecutorial and police misconduct: prior‑conviction evidence improperly injected at voir dire, destruction or loss of a patrol car video tape (exculpatory), perjured testimony by key witness Hernandez and Officer Hermosillo, and a mistaken prosecution of the wrong cause number.
Simon challenges the sex‑offender registration regime and attendant probation/parole conditions as overbroad, punitive (bill of attainder / ex post facto / cruel and unusual), and violative of multiple constitutional rights (1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 14th). He also asserts insufficiency of evidence to prove an actual change of address or intent to change.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Simon)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Wrong case prosecuted / cause number error	Trial proceeded on the wrong case number (2009‑CR‑7309 vs 2010‑CR‑2132); Simon was convicted for an offense not properly tried.	State proceeded under 2010‑CR‑2132 and later dismissed 2009‑CR‑7309; any clerical/technical issue did not deprive jurisdiction or require reversal.	Appellate courts affirmed conviction; trial‑court denials of post‑conviction relief based on procedural grounds.
Voir dire / prior‑conviction disclosure	Jurors were told during voir dire that Simon had a prior sexual‑assault conviction, prejudicing the jury and denying a fair trial.	Prior conviction was material; objections were not properly preserved at trial (per trial/appeal record).	Appellate review relied on the record and found no reversible error (issue waived or not sufficient for reversal).
Grand jury process	Grand jury simply rubber‑stamped the indictment; process lacks adversarial check and violated the 5th Amendment.	Grand jury procedure is constitutionally prescribed; no state‑level defect shown that would require relief.	Courts rejected procedural challenge as not properly preserved and insufficient to overturn.
Mistrial denial (prior‑offense references)	Motion for mistrial was denied after prosecution/ witnesses referenced 27‑year‑old offense despite motion in limine; prejudice persisted.	Prosecutor introduced a document earlier; defendant did not timely object to preserve the issue.	Trial court denied mistrial; appellate courts declined relief, citing waiver or harmlessness.
Destruction of exculpatory evidence (video)	Patrol car video showing Simon saying he was homeless was lost/malfunctioned; tape would have exonerated him and its loss was evidence‑spoiling misconduct.	Prosecutor and officer testified the tape malfunctioned; State did not have preserved footage.	Trial record shows tape unavailable; courts did not grant relief—issue raised but not successful on postconviction review.
Sufficiency of evidence	State failed to prove Simon changed address or intended to; no lease, bills, mail, or other objective proof—conviction rests on unreliable witnesses.	State presented witness testimony (Hermosillo, Hernandez) supporting residence change; appellate standard views evidence in light most favorable to verdict.	4th Court of Appeals affirmed under Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard; Simon’s sufficiency claims were rejected.
Overbreadth / Bill of attainder / Unconstitutional SORAs	Sex‑offender laws are overbroad, punitive, function as bills of attainder, and impose continuing punitive burdens beyond sentence (housing, employment, public shaming).	State contends registry and conditions are civil/regulatory and aimed at public safety; upheld in controlling precedent.	Simon sought declaratory relief; courts denied relief and followed precedent treating registries as permissible (no statewide invalidation achieved in his case).
Probation/parole conditions (1st, 5th, 8th amendments)	Conditions (ban on religious displays, restrictions on computers, contact with children, mandatory polygraphs, ankle monitor) are unrelated to the offense, punitive, vague, and violate multiple constitutional rights.	State argues conditions are within supervisory authority to protect public and rehabilitate; conditions tailored to risk and lawful under precedent.	Trial and appellate courts refused to strike these conditions in Simon’s post‑conviction filings; revocation review focused on procedural and discretionary standards.
Cruel and unusual punishment	Imprisonment/probation with special sex‑offender restrictions for an administrative, victimless reporting lapse is grossly disproportionate.	Sentence (probated term) and supervisory conditions were within statutory and judicial discretion.	Courts did not find an Eighth Amendment violation sufficient to overturn or vacate the sentence in Simon’s proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (sex‑offender registry held civil and non‑punitive for ex post facto purposes)
Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (double jeopardy and retrial limitations)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and exhaustion in habeas review)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (cause and prejudice standard for excuse of procedural default)