Case Information
*1 Lavie Rite: N6-15-M104-2R through - 00106 - 1 RLED IN RECEIVED IN The Court of Appeals Sixth District
NAR 092015 Terrerkana, Texas Debra Autrey, Clerk
SIXth Appellate District
The Court of Appeals
NAR 092015
Terrerkana, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
State of Texas
Michael Tremel Sanders
V.S.
The State of Texas
Trial Cause No. 20576, 20577, & 20591
Trial Count: 6 Judicial District Count of Comon County, TX.
Motion for A Specific Definement of The Parameters of The Definement - Instant-Repairement.
To The Rewortable Justices of The Court of Appeals: Four comes, Michael Tremel Sanders, Appellant, and Bets that Motion for a specific definement of the parameters of the offenses - intent- requirement. In support of that motion, appellant shows the Court the following:
Page 1 of 6
*2 In January 20, 2005, a Center County, Grand Grey handed down two indictments against Appellant Ad- aging the commission of the offense of Westemont By Union on A Correctional On Detention Facility, Report Offender, under Texas Panel Code Ann., Sections 22.11(a) (Venon Supp. 2003, and 12.18. A third indictment for the same offense arising out of the same incident was handed down the following day. On April 1, 2005, in The 6. Judicial District Court of Center County, Texas, Appellant, and not quietly to all three of the indictments, and was tried in a single proceeding for committing during a single incident, the same offense against three different individuals, Justine Soster, Semi-Hellem, and Pony Qimeney, Appellant was convicted in third Cause No. 20576, 20577, & 20591, and received fifteen years confinement in each case with the sentences ordered to be sure concutently, but stacked atip the four space sentence that Appellant was already serving. On October 5, 2005, Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, 6 of Appellant District of Texas, at Tex- nthens. All three convictions were affirmed on January 5, 2006, in appellate Cause No. 06-05-W104-CR, 06-05-W105-CR, and 06-05-W106-CR.
Page 2 of 6
*3 A person commits the ofense of chasement by person in cotsectional or detention facitizy if the person, while inprisoned or confined in a cotsectional or attention facitizy and wich inttont to hosses, alow, or anong another person, causes the other person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluit, saline, wime, or feces of the acter or any other person. Tov. Pon. Code Anm., Sec. XR.II(a) (Venom Supp. 2013) [ Emphasis added to "Venom Supp. 2003"]. See also, Acta 2003, 78 th Exp., ch. 106 (R.B. 274), Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,2003. The ofense changed in the instant matter.
Belacki Zpur Dictionary defines chasement as: A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimall purpose.
Appellants request for the Cwist of Apewls to specifically define the parameters of the ofenses -intont- requirement is based upon the following facta:
In the appeals, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, by arguing that no evidence was offered of his alleged intention to hosses, alow, or anong the jaiters (Soster/Heliam/Quenong). To
*4 the contrary, the only evidence offered of his intentions shows that his intentions (and conduct) to hetons, alotow, of among, and directed at the Trustee (other inmatent), and of, the inmate in the adjoining cell.
The Count of Appetla, in response to Apollants' ofrementions evidence, on Tape 3 of its Memorandum Opinion, cited Tex. Ton. Code Ann., Sec. 22.11(a)(1)(Vernon Supp. 2005) as the Counts stambled of review, even though thet was not the law that was in effect at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, not was Apollant convicted under its gist. Then, on Tape 4 of its Opinion, the Count held:
First, we note that neither the satic nor the indictment required the state to prove that Sanders' intent to hetons was directed at any office. By his own admission, Sanders intended to hetons someone, namely the Trustee of a jettar inmate. That, alone, was sufficient proof of his intent."
Thereby, and therefore, the Count overruled Apollants' assertions of error. However, the Count never specifically defined the poramenctes of the -intent- requirement.
Because the Counts intripetation of Section
*5 22.11 differs from Appellants, and Black &; Law Dictionaries interpretation of Assessment, and because these clearly appears to be two different statues at play note, namely (less than 200.3 "20.3"), and 500.2005), Appellant is now respectfully and nightfully requesting that the Court of Appeals specifically define the parameters of the -intent-requirement of both of the aforementioned statues, and the indictments as well. This request is being made in the interest, and pursuit of justice. Respectfully submitted, by:
Michael T. Sanders ID. No. -1106218 B. C. C. C. Cements unit
4601 Sput 591 Amorillo, TX. 79107-9606 Apeellant, poose Date: March 4, 2015
Page 5 of 6
*6 Centplicate of Service I bawley certify that a true and correct copy of the firegning document. I matron and mailed, via R.P.S. Einst-Clues mail, to the Camag Cunity District Astonen's Office, at 119 R. Main St., 3rd Elane, Paris, Teacal 75460, on this 4 day of March 2015.
Respectfully Sedentative, By: Michael T. Sanderson Signature of Apathert, por se