Case Information
*1 To: Court of Criminal Apepals of Texas P.D. Box 12308
Capitol Station Austin Texas 78711
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Re: W.R. 80, 162-02 Tr. Ct. No. 1436267-A
REC 142815
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Clerk: Pleas Find the "Applicands Suplernental Enor Responding to Stales Assumens: Please File this and Present to the Court of Criminal Apepals of Tews. Please Return Notice on Eulins to the Applicant Mentioned Belou.
Thank You, Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Reseftallly, Casse Milen Sesse Rav Miles Sr. TOC No. 1995133 Dominguez Unir 6535 Casnon Rd. Sen Antonio Texas 78252
*2 Ex Parte
In The Court of Criminal APPIalls-Austin Texas W.R-80,162-02 Tr. Ct. No. 1436261-A 3 Applicant Prose
In The 351st District Court of Harvis County, Texas
Applicant's Supplemental Error Responding to States Acouements
To The Honorable Sudse of Said Court: Applicant, Jesse Ray Miles, files his Pro Se Supplemental around in Support of his original Habers Edition in response to the States Acouements. Pursuant to Articles II. 46 Combined with 21.03 Vernon's Ann C.C.P., to effectuate the Constitutional Articles 1810, 13, 19 and 1829 of the Texas Constitution.
Brid Discussion In Analyzins Applicants Right to Redress a Definition in 2 "One Process" Right to 2 "Fair Trial" Granted by Article 1819 of The Texas Constitution... In Constituins Mandatory Admenishments Regarding Consequences in the form of Sex Offender Resistance Status Under Art. 62,002 Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. Applicant was convicted January 18, 1980 For Rape and Loss Sentenced to 5 Years, and in April 17th, 2015 Applicant was finished and sentenced to 16 Years for failure to Resister when Fair note was not finished.
Applicant's Supplemental Around Applicant invokes Article 1829 of The Texas Constitution to Constitue Article II. 51 Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. The burden is on the State to have the record of Precedings of "Fair Notice" regarding Admenishments on 2 failure to Comply with the requirements under Art. 62,002, Supra.
*3 Apremant invokes antele 1312 of The Texas Constitution and Chollonises the constitutionality of Atele 21.03 C.C.P and Chather 62.002 C.C.P—Estuve to reaistor is treated as a Criminal Penalty—Under which he is restrained of his liberty Bonding Unit of Habers Corpus. Ex Parte Coupland (1802) 260 Tex 3860.
Apremant alloses the state failed to provide an Evidentiawy heanins Pursuant to art. II. 46 C.C.P. to Shaw that areficant was Eanly Provided notice of an4 Fattave Consequences resaradins his Prior Convection. Apremant contends he was not Eanly admonished of the consequences of Fatiave to reaistor in Ofon Court thus neşatins an" Fair notice". In Smith v. Ooe. 538 U.S. 84 (2003), 123 S.C. at 1144, the Supreme Court held "Althoush other methods of ratification may be available, it is effective to make it (notice) Part of the Plea Collaqu or the iudacment of conviction."
Since the areficant's refortable conviction is over 30 years old—Chapler 62 C.C.P. was not anacted Yet — The chaxsins instrumenst is also in violation of Tex. R. Evid. (609 Cb). This conviction is im Peachina the Defendant's testimony betore he has the opportumity to testify and the Prejudieal effect outweishs the Probative Value.
In addition, the State's inclusion of the Phrase ..." While the Porson with a refortable conviction Fair Rape" ... is an attempt to discourase the defendant from exerciisins his 6 th Amendment Riebt to 2 trial by Suy. The Defendant alloses this as Prascudoral Vindictiveness. Allouins the State to read the indictment denied the Defendant 2 Fair and impartial trial. This Phrase Prejudied the iur4 against the defendant.
*4 Even more Specifically, this "Phrase" Constitutes Prejudicial SurPmasse. This Phrase is not Part of the Statute. This Phrase is not an element of this Statutes Construction. Therefore this Phrase is not Jurisdictional. See 62.102 V.A.C.C.P., also Ballavd U. State, 149 S.G.3d 693 (Ter. Apr.- dustin 2004).
This Phrase was used to convict the Retitioner and violated Atele 36.01, U.A.C.C.P. The Phrase allacis the Suiv to hear the Defendant has a Prior Conuiction that is not Allessed for onhancement and is not a Surisdictional elemenent of the offense Chansed duvins the Guilt/Innocence Phase of the trial.
- This Phrase cannot urhold a Conviction under Chaplor 62 V.A.C.C.P
- Conviction under Chapter 62 V.A.C.C.P. is Punitive and Harmful under Ex Post Facto Clause, Art. 1810 cl. 1 of U.S.C.A. Const.
- Defendant's Conviction of 10 Years is Punitive and Violates Ex Post Facto since his Orisinal Sentence was For 5 Years. -Ex Post Facto Clause was meant to Prevent " 2 rbituary and Patentiall4 Vindictive lesislation." Weaver V. Graham, 450 U.S. 2429 , 1013 ct. 960,67 L.Ed2d 17 (1981).
- The State never Produced Evidence that the Applicant was given Fair Notice. If the record is Devoid of Evidentiaxy Support for a Conviction an Evidentiaxy heavins challenged is Coonizable on a wnif of Habers Corpus. Ex Parle Perales, 2153613 d 418 (Cv. Cvim. Hor.)
*5
Conclusion
Wherefore, Premises Considered, Appligant Rrars this Honorable Court" Brants" him the Areat wint upon Concluding that the chargina instrumont was indeed void, Ex Parte Revnolds, (Cx App. 1896) 35 Tex. Crim. 437, 3436120 ; and his conviction Punitive and in Violation of Ex Past Fach Clause, U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1310 cl. 1, On an Evidentiar4 Ex Parte hearina of Art 2103 c.c.P., Art 11.96 c.c.P, and Ch. 62 U.A.C.C. F naving Proved b4 the record that the appliont was not required by'2au" to resister Since he was never Fairly admonished nor given fair Notice to resister.
Seued and Entered on this 8 dav of Deb 2015
Res rectf ull 4 Submitted Qesse Raus Wules (Lr Tesse Ra4 mites 51995133 Dominguez Unit 6535 Cenon Rd San Anbino Teras 78253