To the horsensble Judges of sno Cenrit: Now Comes Alfred Handersaw, Applicant Morsh pressants to this cenrit this motors descridered above, prescment to Taxas Reiles of Appellate procederated Rules 32, 92, to Specifically to movh this cenrit to Enforce the ples Appremant inwhich at trial Cenrit Applicant entered A ples of greilly into Judicial confessions brosh on the promise and indecernent of a ples Aquremant that makes him now fustible to exclal from that Judgmant and Confir- ment as a matter of law, becaush Applicant guilly MeA is unknuth and was not given violentanily and knowingly whar brosh one promise the state did not keep a in support of Applicant will show siest Censh as to why this Cenrit should Enforce Specific performance or fustible Applicant to with draw his MeA.

*2 OTATAMENT of MEA ABREEMENT

ON November 28, 2012 Applicant evtined into a MEA bargain Agreement with the state where by Applicant aggred to a lessen punishment of Robbery AND WAVIED his right to Confront witnesses AND a Juvy trial is exchange for punishment to be assessed at two years and time served AND a timely revocation bearing regarding Another The JudgE Agreded to the MEA Agree- ment and gave Applicant credit for all the time corbined in CENTy Jail. However and of the contrary Applicant was wrongly sent to TEXAS Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). In a written Affidavit by (TDCJ) office over Records Mr. Charley Valdez certified to be true and submitted to him concet that Applicant discharged the two year stertrance on January 1, 2013. Applicant filed a habrert corpus with 11.07 on December 28, 2013. In March of 2013 Applicant was given a two year SET off as a default of the undaviel two year stertrance. Inwhich the parole bound was the two year stertrance and conviction as a fractar for a reason for the two year set off.

Standings and Apprentices

Applicant confounds he has standing to argue AND object to the undaviel MEA Agreement

*3 that was not keep by the state. Applicant Lember points out that his idea was not knowingly ans Voluntarily made but was back on the Induce ment ans unkopt promise made by the state. SEE Eypaste Battle B19 S. W2d. 81, 85(Tex App. 1986). Applicant contends that when a plea of guilty has been entered to a plea agreement at first Ans the Judge has accepted the PEA the Applicant is entitle to specific exconcent of the agreement if it can be enforced or if not ensureable Applicant can withdraw his plea. SEE Perkins vs. Coent of Appeals 138 S. W2d. 276(Tex App. 1987). Also SEE Gibson v. state 803 S. W2d. 316(Tex App. 1991) this court held that when prosecutor previously failed to enforce plea agreement or grounds that it was void, detendant was entitled to have PEA agreement Specifically performed Rather than having the PEA withdraws when detendant had already served substantial portions of his Sentence under guilty PEA.

Registered Refile L where have these reasons presented above Applicant seeks to move this court for. Refile ans to under specific preconance of the PEA agreement made at first coent Ans to set aside the two coents Judgment Ans Convictions ans Immediate Release of Applicant to suffer no more set off by...

*4 PAGE bound anio other tellit this coent dems appropriate.

Cedificent of Service I, Athed Hendrsen de harib, decline that a true ano coxter copy of this matione wn servued by Plavics the same in a car. minil Box Ereculted on this 14 day of fith. 2015 Addess to clerk of Coent witted below.