Case Information
*1 TO: Presiding Judge SHARON KelleR COURT OF CRIGINAL APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXASMOTION DEMIED DATE: 4-1-15 BY: P.C. DATE:
IN RE: EX PARTE Gill JARONE WHITE WRIT* 22,785-13
- HABEAS REVIEW - MOTION FOR LEAVE
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIGINAL APPEALS APR 062015 to whom it may concern:
DEAR MADAM. I AM NOT TOTally CONVINCED that ANY AND All SUBMITTED ITIGATION RECTRINING TO THIS HABEAS ACTION is BROUghT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AS REQuiked By THE RULES OF COURT IN A HABEAS PROCEEDING. MORESO, BEING THE RIMMARY REASON WHEY I AM SUBMITTED MY HABEAS ITIGATION DIFECTly TO YOU, INSTEAD OF THE COURT-CLERK. AND YES AND YES, I AM GUIITY OF WIIAT I AM ACcussed of, (ARMEd ROBERTY). MONETHEIESS, I HAVE COMPLETED (25) YEARS FITT ACTUAL CONFINEMENT TOWHERS A (75) YEAR SENTENCE. AND MORESO, I MEET THE CRISTERIA FOR my SUBSEQUENT HABEAS PETITION TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS. IN ADDITION, NO ONE WAS HURT NOOR INJURIED DURING THE COURSE OF MY CRINE. (PLEASE REVIEW).
*2 CAUSE # 538931-L WRIT # 22, 785-12
EX PARTE Gill UARONE WHITE Prisoner - Petitioner
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIGINAL APRAS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HABeAs Petition, in OPPosition To the States ORIGINAL ANSWER and PROposed Findings of Fact, with amended HABEAS Petition Attached
I.
THE PRISONER SUBMITTED AN ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AUTHORIZED PURSUNIT TO ARTICLE 11.07, TEX. CODE CRIm. PROC. THUS HAVING BEEN Filed in the 179TH District COURT AT HARRIS COUNtry, TEXAS, in the above indicated cause on 1/20/2015. WHEREAS, THE ASSEPTS AS His REINARY GROUND FOR RELIEF, THUS Alleging THAT DUE TO THE EFFECTS EFFECTS OF IONS-TERM CONFINEMENT IN THE PRISON - ENVIRONMENT, THUS SUBJECTS HIM TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN DIRECT VIGATION OF HIS 8TH AMENDMENT RIGHT. SEE, ORIGINAL PETITION AT PAGES 6, AND 7.
*3 II.
IN Addition, the Prisoner will show Now Serenificly Bring to the Court's Attention Thus Oprosing in Oposition a Particlar And Most Relevant Matter Concerning the Prisoner's Intent or Purpose for the Prisoner's current Habers Petition as offered by the State on Page (3) of their original Response. Iwhereas, the State Has misdefined the Applicable law in Regards to the Prisoner's subsequent Habers challenge to the same conviction. Iwhereas, the State Attempts to mislead the Court in this Regard. Moreso, the State in its Response Reply, thus seeks 'moreso the State in their Reply Answer, thus seeks to enforce the Provisions of Article 11.0? sec. 4 (A) to this Habers Proceedings. Ithereby, Falsely Alleging that the Prisoner in His original Petition, Has Not included sufficient specific Facts Establishing that the current claims have Not Been and could Not Have Been Presented Previously in His initial Previously considered Habers Petition. However, Notice at Page (4) of the Prisoner's original
*4 Petition, thus the Prisoner clearly indicates How the Factual or legal Basis of the Instant claims were Reasonablely unavailable to Him with until years after His initial previously considered HABERS RETTAN challenging His conviction had already been so emitted. unlimited.
II. more so, notice upon the courts review at pages 6, and 7, of the original petition, thus the Prisoner makes only a challenge only to the conditions of His desiraft. Thus events occurring during the extent of His long-term content in the Prison environment. Furtheres, the validity of the Prisoners conviction is not at issue. Whereas the Prisoner is this cause does not assert Nor claim that His on-going conviction for first degree armed robbers, is void of tainted. Nonetheless, conditions of the Prisoners RESTRANT, is thus construed as a constructional issue, and may be desired on HABERS Review. EXParte Russell, 738 s.w. 2d 644 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1986)
*5 Impreso, the Prisoners initial HABers petition suBmitted under cause 538931-A thus initially challenging His Primary conviction, was thus considered on December 11, 1991. In addition, the Duration of time for the factual and legal basis of the current SID Amendment claim, thus extends from the year 2009 till 2014. And even if the Prisoners current HABATION is considered or construed by the Reviewing court to be a subsequent Habers challenge to the same conviction, thus the Prisoner clearly Demonstrates in this instance, How the factual and/or legal basis of the current claim as asserted, were clearly unavailable to him at the time his initial or first Habers petition was considered. ThereFore, the Prisoner Being the Habers petitioner Herein, should be allowed to proceed with His on-going litigation thus withstanding that the required criteria Haning been established as set-Forty pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 sec. 4 (A) тех. code crim. Proc. . . Whereas the Prisoner meets the criteria as set forty by the Article 11.07 sec. 4 (A)
*6 And Should Be Allowed to Fully Reosecute His current Habers claim for Relief. Thus in All Funds—mental Fairness.
IV.
More so, the State's original answer in reply to the Prisoners original wift application, is somewhat deficient in-fair. Whereas the State did not address the Prisoners comminst in-chief. Specifioy as to rather the eondition conditions of the Prisoners' existence thus being consistoriously adequate. Furtheras preferring to this developing Developed bycthistic condition occurring reasonably due to the effects of long-term confinement in the Prison environment. At which the Prisoner Has No previous mHMR History Prior to His confinement. Moreso, which subjects him to cruel and unusualEnishment in Relation to the conditions of His Resistance. In addition, additional fact-findings and conclusions
P. 5.
*7
Need to be Develof when Remand By order of this COURT. FURTHERMORE, THE PRISONER HAS HARD indeed made of DEMONSSTATED A SUBSFANATIMI showing of a Denial of a CONSTRNTIONAL RIGHT, within His ORIGINAL RETITION THAT MAY VERY-WEEL WARRANT HABERS RELIEF. . . MORESO, ANY FURTHER DEPENTION UNDER THESE Alleged CIRCUITSTANCES, would AMOUNT TO A DEPRIVATION OF A SERIOUS ARED MEDICAL ADED OR PSYCHIATRIC NEED. COMPARE ESTEME 45. GAMBRE, 429 U.S. 97,104 . 97 S.C. (1976)
7.
AMENDED RELIEF CONCLUSION
THE PRISONER UPDM ORIGINAL SUBMISSION ACCORDING TO THE STATE, HAS ERRED IN HIS HISTORAL REQUEST FOR HABERS RELIEF. WHERERS, ACCORDING TO THE STATE IN REPLY TO THE PRISONER'S ORIGINAL HABERS RETITION. THIS THE R PRISONER REEVIOUSly REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF SENTENCE, OR SENTENCE
*8 modification. Wheres the state contends not being an available Habers Remedy. Nonetheless the Prisoner at this time seeks to correct. Amend, or alter His Requested Relief as follows: wHere upon original submission, at Pages 6, and 7, thus due to the circumstances involved. Thus the Prisoner Having Been DisgNOSEd as a Bgey Psychiatric Patient with a mood-disorder. Thus Been Per Doctor w. m. Jones, m.D. moreso, that the Prisoner be discharged from the From the current Prison EnviroR: Enviroment and Remanded to a more suitable alternative Psychiatric Program as authorized pursuant to Texas Health Safety Code Ann. Articles 614.013 and 614.016. Wheres, as asserted upon original submission at Pages 6, and 7, that the Prisoner in Question Has Previously Had subsequent attempts of suicide while confined within the Prison Enviroment.
*9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SERVICE HAS BEEN Accomplished By Sending A COPy of THIS INSTRUMENT TO THE Following Address.
LINDA GARCIA ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 STARE BAR # 00787/63
Signed on the 1ST day of ARRII, 2015
A SIDI TRANNE WARS FRISONER-PETITIONER GILI TRANNE WHITE # 538415 Bill CLEMENTS UNIT 9601 SHUR 591 AMARillo, TEXAS 79107
— P. 8 —