Case Information

*1

$110,138-15$

2e Part
Manny Cline

Application for Writ 0 Heben Corpus Rebruttak

Prom: 189th Westeit Court Bragg Country $\rho$ Sefas Cause $16318M-14$

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. SEP 23.2015 AbelAcosta, Clerk

*2

Table of Content

A. Sline was not given notice or a hearing prior to his release or parole that special condition $K$ had been imposed. page 1 B. Retitionerd arest was illegal and not made lawful by computer. gage C. Retitioneris punishment was uleesine and misleles due process. page 5 D State presents legal controversy that is relevant and material to this cause of action. page 7 Verification page 8 Certificate of Servic page 8

*3 By Farts NannyCline In Jefos Court of Criminal Bipposes Rust, 215 as

Application for Wrist of Robess Gorges, Rethurtal

To the Honorable Court: Eyparte Cline was convicted in 1988 of arsen. He was sentence to 50 years and served 25 years before his release to mandatory supervision 12-20-13. Petitioner has a prior schaal assault conviction out of Waco in 1966, which he discharged in 1973. As a condition of mandatory supervision the parish panel imposed Special Condition $X$ , which requires petitioner must attend psychological counseling in a sey-of-brobe treatment program. A. Cline was not given notice or a beaming prior to his release on parole that Special Condition $X$ had been imposed

*4 by the parole panel. The State contends that petitioner was properly notified on March 19, 2013. Petitioner had already been released on parole December 20, 2012.

Argument &; Authority Section 508.141. Gov't Code Subsection (g) reads to wit: Before a parole panel considers for release on parole an inmate serving a sentence for an of fesse described by Section 508. 1876), the panel shall require that the inmate submit to an evaluation by an individual or organization that provides of of fender treatment or counseling for the purpose of determining whether the inmate if released pose of theeat to public safety." (H8300)(1999).

The parole panel failed to conduct a hearing prior to Clins release 12-38-12.

*5 However three months after his release the parole office in Juju Informed him the parole panel in Austin had imposed Condition X upon him and he had to comply or it would be grounds to revoke his parole. Under such threats, duress, and coercion, petitione affixed his signature to the document presented.

Petitioner voiced his protest and gave the parole office a copy of the law and informed him he was notserving sentence for a six crimy against a minor child.

When (p. 0) Rogins took petitioner to counselor Modisette's program, the first words out of Modisette's mouth was... he's not suppose to be in here." However, after a discussion in privacy, petitioner was told to stay as the parole panel had made Special Condition X as a part of his parole.

Petitioner spent 25 years in prison for aerson. He has only the one special assault conviction in 1906 and no other six related offenses.

*6 Of TOCJ officials believed petitioner was a high risk for committing the same or similar of fense, he would have received counseling while in prison. those 25 years. The parole panel has no. of cuse for not conducting a hearing before imposing condition 2 .

The State's justification that petitioner signed the document is not relevant, as it was obtained through threats, duress, and coercion by his parole of scie, who was only carrying out the instructions he had received from superiors. B. Pettition is arest was illegal and not made lawful by the computer.

Petitioner was arested and handed to jail by three Smith County Policemen, who were acting outside their jurisdiction in Cheukes County. The fact that the petitioner can not give their names or badge number is irrelevant. The three

*7 police identified themselves as being from Smith County and all three persons/wore Smith County Uniforms. Cherokee County police uniforms/ ale distinguishable and no one from Cherokee County was present when the aviest was mad.

Absent proap to the contrary, the petitionis foetical statements must be considered true and correct.

The fact that the police did not have a warndint in theirpossession makes/it even more illegal. The State/ concedes B3. the warant was in the eomperter system at the time. (p 28) However this does/ not etcuse the police action of the warant was indeed signed $1-14-15$ and petitione was arrested 2-4-15, the police had sufficent time to down-lood a copy of the warant or to hav recuired it in the poobl service. Defou making the aviest.

Sheufare Cstitunis aviest and the deprivation g his litusty was illegal and unlawful. A copy g the warant.

*8 as provided by the State only proves it was issued 1-18-15. We have no way of knowing when the police came into the possession of it-only that they did not have the warrant in their possession when they made the arrest.

C. Petitioner's punishment was intensive and violates due process.

As witnessed infor, China arrest and detention was illegal and untagful, he reciaved no due process.

The State wants to make light of the issue by asserting Who parple was not remarked, he does haused at an intermediate sanction facility for a period of time. (p. 55). True enough but the fact remains, China was deprived his liberty for 4 months. What makes it more of denial of due process is the fact that the punishment inflicted was by parple's of-patent office Sunday, 6 two who had been released of his duties earlier and replaced by Huey priposes.

*9 Aparole of ficier who had been relieved of his duties a year prior to the revocation and the revocation on material gothera) yea earlier, has no authority to do so. (p293a) The State died mot ever address this issue so lowe by default. The State continues to assert that Section 508. 1820 is applicable to the petitioner simply because of his 1966 conviction for suent assault. The State fails to recog nise the limitations set by the state, to wit: "Tthis section apphils only to a release serving a sentence for an Defense under...." 508.1830 does not grant the parole panel the authority to go back 50 t years to a suent assault case that has already been served. Even the serving claims of the statute prohibits such use, to wit: ... the changes in law made by this Act apply only to of Denus committed on in after the affection of the Sept., 5011 of this Act. (p. 38) The statute disqualifies the use of the 1966 reveatswant conviction.

*10

1. In State presents a legal controversy that is relevant and material to this action.

The State continues to assert that Patitioner's actual assault conviction was in 1975. Petitioner asserts the conviction was in 1966 and he discharged it in 1975.

Absent any group to the controversy Chines's factual allegation must be considered true and correct. However in good faith, Petitioner request the Court to subpenal these records.

Chine was released from prison on 99th of the serving 25 years for 10 son. He has no sek-related offences except the one in 1965, and none against 2 minor. He works daily for 24,000 and attends church regularly.

The State contention that the setroactivity of Astieh 62,002 TC.C.P. would make petitioner's 1966 conviction quickly is mistake. ( 9.38 ) The State applies only to Ofences committed on or after Sept. 1, 1976. (9.38)

The passim panel can not reimburse me for the 300 that they cost me when I was locked up, but this Court can make sure they do not.

*11 the authority to do so again by ruling in few of the petitions. Signed under penalty of perjury. If mond and eyented this 18th Sept. 2017. respectively. Manny Cline MannyCline Certified Servis On the same date, petitions sent the sent the State a copy of the Praying instrument. MannyCline MannyCline