Case Information

*1 Steve Mype "1855018 Eastham Unit 26655 Peica Rd. "1 Lovely, Teas 75851 RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS December 11,2015 DEC 21,2015 Abel Acosta. Clerk

Abel Acosta. Clerk

Court of Criminal Appants 212. Sex 12308 Capital Status Austin, Texas 78711

RE: WR-83, P.36-03 Tr. Ct. 1364440-8

Dene Cleek, Applicant is sending Memorandum of Law that Support his Application with U27 filed in this Court Please find a copy of the General Tenence. Apply and the Request for Gene to file a Noted for the Term Court to. Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Acts, Rule 201. Teens Rule of Evidence, that was filed in November 2015.

"Evidence" (1) Memorandum of Law (2) Copies of the Tenence. Reply and Request for Gene to file a Noted for the Term Court to. Take Judicial Notice, that was Doted and filed in November 2015.

Samantha, Stavin Mype "1855018 Steve Mype "1855012 12/11/15 Cefaw

*2

$83,296-03$

Memorandum of Law in Support of Application for West of Habers Corpus Article II. 07 Cause No. WX-83,236-03

*3 NO. WJR-53,236-03 IN THE Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Austin, Texas

Ex parte

Stevie Wige.

179th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 1364440-8

Memorandum of Law in Support of Application for wirt of Habers Corpus seeking relief from final felony Convention, ARt. 11.07

To The Honorable Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Now Comes, Steve Wige, Applicant and Submitle this Memorandum in Support of Application for wirt of Habers Corpus seeking relief from final felony Convention under article 11.07. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and would show this Honorable Court the following:

Jurisdiction

This Honorable Court has Jurisdiction over this, the parties and the externalizing matter pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Centersment and Postersist

Applicant was convicted of appervent sexual assault in the case and sentenced to 25 years in person in untrustully senticed and posterned of his Liberty, by William Stephow, acting in his Official Cepacity as Director of the Texas Department of the Criminal Justice Coneectional Existence Division (T.D.C.J.-ID) Exsthase Unit, Appervent Sexual Assault Case No. 1364440-8 in the 179th Judicial District Court of Harris County Texas to article 11.22 of the Texas Code Criminal Procedure.

*4 Liberal Security Applicant is a layman of the law, unskilled without experience in drafting of Legal papers. Therefore, Applicant is entitled to a Review that comes under a less strangest standard than those formal proceeding submitted by fertil and skilled penctowvers of the law. Gundrez v. Lywaugh, 852 F. 2d 852-34 (5"Cie. 1998).

Judicial Notice Applicant pursuant to Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 2D1 of the Texas Rule of Evidence, asking this Courel to Take Judicial Notice of All motion, Exhibits, Reporten Records and Clerk's Records that cited to support that Applicant was clewed effective assistance of Counsel, There was no agreement recommendation in the case, There was no finding of quilt to obtain a conviction. In Three points of Error, Applicant complains: 1). he received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to his pre-sentence investigation hereing and that 2). He suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the English Amendment where the record reflect what Applicant was sentenced to twenty-five years T.D.C., But was Eligible for probation and 3) the Trial Cearet erered in accepting letter containing unsworn victing impact statement requesting the Applicant be given a life sentence without prede, JEOR to sentencing.

*5

Ground for Relief

Ground over: Applicant Received ineffective assistance counsel at his Pre-Sentence investigation hearing where counsel 1). failed to object to unSoworn victim input statement entered into evidence before sentencing and 2). failed to object to the teuendy-five year sentence as ceuel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment where the Record Reflects the Applicant was Eliqible for Probation.

Ground two: Applicant Received ceuel and unusual punishment where the Record Reflect what He Received twenty-five years in TDC But was Eliqible for Probation.

Ground three: The Trial Court erRed in accepting letter from the state containing unsword victim Statement Requesting a life sentence without parple, prior to Sentencing.

*6 Statement of the Case

This appeal lies from the Applicant conviction the Appointed Sexual assault of a child in years of age. In three plants of E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E.

*7 The First witness called by State was Karew Parker (C.R.II5) Ms. Parker is employed with the Department of family and Protective Services (C.R.II-5) Ms. Parker became involved in the case an December 5, 2018 and met with the children individually parents and with MR. WYne the Applicant where he was wcercepted (C.R.II-6) Ms. Parker stated that the children have a lot of fear if them and have a hard time disclosing and talking about the abuse but its slowly coming out (C.R.II-6) Ms. Parker stated that one of the children, Ausbel told her she did not want to celebrate her birthday because the Applicant Rape her on her birthday (C.R.II-7) Ms. Parker met the Applicant two time in the Jail on San Jacinto to explain to him what a family plan of service is and to see if he was interested in working with the Service (C.R.II-7, 8).

Ms. Parker did it because the Applicant children love him (C.R.II-8), at this time Defense Object to Any statement made by Applicant because the Applicant had pied quity (C.R.II-8) the objection was eyerented (C.R.II-8) Ms. Parker stated that the Applicant was somber and paranond and would not sign the family plan of service. At the time (C.R.II-8) on Second Visit the Applicant Advised Ms Parker that she told him that if he signed the family plan of service he would be able to get out of the Jail (C.R.II-9).

Ms. Parker said she were promised that and had no power or authority to make any statement such as that (C.R.II-9) Ms. Parker stated that the Applicant was entitled, and educated that his Attorney said he shouldn't speak to her (C.R.II-9) Ms. Parker stated that she would be the researcher for the quits and they were in a safe environment (C.R.II-10). Ms. Parker was excused (C.R.II-10).

The Count Woted that the state had provided the Count with some letters (C.R.II-10) The state agreed that the state had provided the Count with some letters, which had been reordered to the Defense (C.R.II-10) The Defense had no objection to the letter being admitted in to the PSI regard (C.R.II-10). The State existed and Defense called the Applicant, Steve Wyer to the stout (C.R.II-3).

*8 Me. Wypee the Applicant stated that he wrote been convicted in this state of my other state of a felony offense (C.R.TT-3) He indicated that he wrote been placed on felony adult probation in this state of my other state in the United State (C.R.TT-3,4) Me. Wypee agreed that he pied quily to an offense because he was guilty and he was coming to the Court the punishment and asking the Court the mercy (C.R.TT-4) He agreed that he would be able to work and supposed his dependent and follow the Court's Rules (C.R.TT-4).

Me. Wypee indicated that he was able to report once a month and was working doing Sondbusting, working as a painter and making appear at 25 bo. a month (C.R.TT-4,5) Me. Wypee stated that he has been dependent five of them are teenagers and the rest are little kids (C.R.TT-5) He stated he had six natural children and the complausant were not his children (C.R.TT-5) He stated that if he was given a second chance He would be a better father (C.R.TT-5) Me. Wypee stated that he was fairly two years old (C.R.TT-5) Me. Wypee agreed that he understood the Judge had the full range of punishment any where from five years to the if the court did not consider deferred adjudication (C.R.TT-6).

Me. Wypee agreed that if the Judge did not consider deferred adjudication He was asking her to consider the lower end of punishment (C.R.TT-6) Me. Wypee asked the Court to please give him a chance because he had an 11 month old and 5 year old that used him (C.R.TT-6) He indicated that he understood that the Court was going to order him to have no contact and any child supposed (C.R.TT-10,7).

On Cress, Me. Wypee agreed that he admitted that he sexually abuse his three stepchildren (C.R.TT-4) He agree that he sexually gunber more than once (C.R.TT-9) He agreed that Gunber was 14 years old when he stated (C.R.TT-10) He agreed that He sexually assault Misshof cigarettes and when she came home he beat her up (C.R.TT-10).

In closing the state agreed the Court to look at in the 157 report (C.R.TT-12) State's Exhibit 1 the 155 report was entered who suchade, made to senterize (C.R.TT-12).

Following closing payment the Court found the terms Depastment of correction Institutional Discount (C.R.TT-13).

*9 Argument and Authorities Applicant First Cramet: Applicant received ineffective assistance of Counsel at his the Sentence investigation herring where counsel 1). failed to object to unsurom with myent statement entised into evidence before sentering and 2). failed to object to the twenty-five year sentence as Cend and whisund punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, where the propit defects the Applicant was Eighile the protection.

The Stockend test now apples to the punishment place of a new capital trial. At December 2, 2008, 987 S.W. 2d 307, 510 (Tex. Gain. App. 1990) (estabishing test for ineffective assistance of counsel, in the punishment phase of new capital trial). We now apply the same two group Stockend standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel, chias in both the quile lastensive phase of trial and the punishment phase of trial. At December 2, 2008, 726 S.W. 2d 53, 55 (Tex. Gain App. 1986).

To show ineffective assistance of Counsel at punishment the Applicant must first demonstrate counsel's representatives fell below an Objective standard of responsibilities under prevailing professional norms. Stockend V. Washington, 146 U.S. 668, 104 S.C. 2052, 90 L. 2d 2d 674 (984) McCellenid V. State 928 S.W. 2d 482, 500 (Tex. Gain. App. 1996). Counsels competence is presumed and the Applicant must zebut this presumption by identifying the act of omissions of counsel that are alleged as ineffective and affirmatively prove that they fell below the professional norms of responsibilities. At theend 928 S.W. 2d at 500, the weffectiveness claim cannot be demonstrated by isolating any portion of counsels representative but is judged on the totality of the representatives. Stockend, 1460 U.S. at 608, 104 S.C. at 2065.

The Supreme Court has held that counsels statement performance that resulted in a higher sentence under determinate sentering guideline constitutes prejudice. Gtove V. United State 53 U.S. 198 (2001) Counsels Representation Fell Below An Objective Standard Responsibness.

Applicant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel continued within the pre-sentence investigation. Report and written letter to the Court that were entered into evidence before sentering and 2). failed to make an Eighth Amendment. Objective Theory wywing Applicant Review, where the Applicant received twenty-five years.

*10 1) Failure to Object to Unsworn Victim Impact Statement Admitted into Evidence Before Sentencing.

In Griftoid y State 980 S.W. 2d 751 (Tes App-Housten 1st Dist 1998 pet 288d the First Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded for a new punishment bearing, where counsel for the defense 1), fail to object to unsworn victim impact statement made before Sentencing and 2), did not ask to conduct cross-examuelion. The Court noted in Griftoid 1 Clearly, Mr. Farree's Statement having been made before punishment was assessed, did not qualify as a statement being made under article 42.03. It simply failed to meet the guidelines established by that article. Consequently the legal Court should not have allow the statement to occur before the pronouncement of sentence.

In addition article 37.07 of the Tens code of Criminal Breedure does not authorize the use of such a statement. Ten Code PgR 84418 et. 37.07 while we recognize that the legal Court has brored disoction under article 37.07 to decide what is relevant to sentencing, we find nothing in the article to lead us to conclude that legislative included to allow an unsworn statement at the punishment bearing.

A victim impact statement as authorized by the United State Supreme Court in Payne v. Tennessee 504 US, 508, 827, III S.Ct. 115 L. Ed 720 (1991) and by the Tens Court of Criminal Appeals in Food y. State 919 S.W. 2d 107, 114-16 (Tes. Com. App. 1996) is yestingy given under with and capable of being cross-examined, the statement was inappropriate because it was not sworn nor capable of being cross-examined. Counsel should have objected all the legal court should not allow the statement to be given.

With Request to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim the Court noted "the legal Counsel's failure to object to have been ineffective assistance. Applicant must demonstrate that if he had objected, the legal Judge would have committed error in refusing to sustain his objection" (444) v. State 808 S.W. 2d 42, 74 (Tes App-Houten 1st Dist (1994) 28d 951 S.W. 2d 504 (Tes. Com. App. 1996) we believe that if Griftoid legal counsel had objected to the victim impact statement the legal Court would have eared in overeuling the objection This Griftoid has demonstrated that his legal counsel was ineffective.

*11 The complained of the unknown victim impact statement were contained withid the Pre-Senforce Investigation Report and withid the letter from the Sister, Marisa C; Maribel G. and Duabel C; the Compiaioleg witness these unsuibed statement were entered into evidence before punishment was assessed the witness were not present to testify and theertore were unavailable for Cross examination, at the punishment hearing and before brethment was assessed, his Partee was excused and the State agreed that the State had provided the Couet with some letters which had been teadred to the Dethase (C.R.II-O) the Dethase had No objection to the letters being admitted to the PST. report (CR.II).

State's Exhibit 1, the PST. Report was entered into evidence page to senterung (C.R.III-12).

The letters from Marisa C; Maribel G. and the complaining witness Maribel C. appear in Couet Expertise's Volume 14 page 34 Wisough 39 and reflect their views about the affluse, the deteudect and the effect of the offense on the victim the letter Says by Marisa C, stated that the stress is overwhelming "the last like her heand will begat to Judge her and the Regret that the Appliant be sentenced to life in prison without puede (C.R.IV-35) the letter signed by Maribel G. saned that she hepe that the Appliant was given enough time to reply change (CR.II-36) the letter says by Maribel Says the aupliant should go to prison and stay where her life (CR.IV-37)

Dethase failed to effect to the admunion wreve article 42.03 See (b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Texas Code of Council Procedure addresses a Couet to accrue victim import statement for Code Cens, Pacc. 444. Ref. 42.03 See (b) Veauum Says 2015) but as below, the legislature has sequeely limited the use and export of the statement by requiring that it be made after punishment has been assessed: (b) the Couet shall permit a victim close Relative of a deceased victim, or qunédian of a victim as defined by article 68.01 of this Code to appear in prison to present to the couet and to the defendant a statement of the persons views about the offense the defendant and the effect of the offense on the victim Relative or qunédian may not direct question to the deteudect, while making the statement the couet procedure may not rouscable the deteudect. the statement must be made: 1). After punishment has been assessed and the Couet has determined whether or not to grant community Supervision in 10 the case 2). After the Couet has announced the term and condition of the Sentence: 3). After sentence is pronounced.

*12 The complained of the unsworn victim import statement contamed. whth the letter were eviteced wto evidence: D. Before punishment was assessed 2). Before the count andounced the terms and condition of the Sentence. 3). Before Sentence was prondounced.

Clearly, these unsworn victim import statement did not qualify as Admissible statement under article 42.03. Defense Counsel should have objected to the State's introduction of the letters containing unsworn victim import statement who evidence Counsel failure to object to a victim import statement made before sentencing has been held to be ineffective assistance of counsel and zeversible error. Quilted v. State 990 S. 10. 2d 791 (Tex. App - Houston 1st Dist 1998 pet. ref'd). Joussoo v. State 256 S. 10. 3d. 244 (Tex. Caim. App. 2009). Judge had no discretion to impose Tail Time as a condition of probation after Judge heard unsworn and no-cress-earmured victim adlocation including statement that victim wanted clelentart 40 qn 40 fail. 2. Failure to Object to the 25 year Sentence as Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Defense Counsel failed to object to the Applicant's Sentence 25 years in prison for appointed sexual assault of a child under 14 as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Failure to Reise as Eighth Amendment obyettive al wial present making any such claim on appeal (Tex. R. App 33.1(a) CuRRY V. State 910 S. 10. 2d 490 457 (Tex. Caim. App. 1995) Failure to preserve error has been held to ineffective assistance of counsel. Munter v. State 824 S. 10. 2d 308 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1992 40 pet.)

Applicant argues that ineffective assistance of counsel is his case is Equivalent of Desial of counsel and that he should be qpant another PST hearing.

The benchmark for Judging a claim of ineffective assistance is whether counsel's conduct so undermised the Deeper functioning of the adversarial process that a wial could not be relied on as having produced a just result.

*13 Steckland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668104 S.Ct. 2052, so L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) To establish reflective assistance of Counsel at the quilt luniscee stage of that the Applicant must show that 1) his counsel's performance was abstinent Counsel's error were so serious that he was not functioning as the Counsel "quarantized by the Sinh Amumant and 2). The deficient performance peeudiced the defense observed him of a fine Tait at 657) Hemmster V. State 726 S.W. 2d 53,55 (Tex. Caim. App. 1986).

These Eeror demonstrate 1) that Applicant's Counsel performance was untewably deficient Counsel's error were so serious that he was not functioning as the Counsel "quaranted by the sixth Amendment and 2) the deficient performance peeudiced the defense depeved him of a fine hearing at 657) Hemmster V. State 726 S.W. 2d 53,55 (Tex. Caim. App. 1986).

The undersigned Counsel saw that of no startleay test 1) Eating to object to letters containy unsueous with import statement Reject a life sentence page to 2) Eating to object to the twenty - fine year sentence w order to Pecseible the market the Applicant's Review. United State V. Cewue 466 U.S. 6548 (1984) Buadise v. Tobusow 2d2 F. 3d 336 (5 (i.e. 2001) ceet denied 535 U.S. 1120 (2002).

Applicant must show not only that his attorney noted no provide reasonably professional assistance but that Applicant was thecely banned by Counsel's failure (Steckland v. Washington 54928 The Standard he Revessible error is abeared. Tushing from the record as a whole there is a reasonable probability that but the Counsel's unprofessional error the result of the preceding would have been different (Steckland v. Washington 54928)! In analyziay the harm to Applicant, this tenet should peecuated that the Tait count and fire would have acted according to the law (Steckland v. Washington 54928). Applicant would noted that in Showing harm, He is not required to show that had the received Reposiably professional representation, then more likely than not a different outcome would have desutted. His V. Whiteside 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 985, 89 L. Ed. 2d. 123 (1983).

Applicant received reffective assistance of Counsel at his Pre- sentence Investigation Heaps.

This Count should Revesse Applicant's conviction and demand the case for further proceedings (Tex. E. Tipp. P. 43. 2(d)) Weier Pamp. 2013); (Ttex. P. App. P. 44.2 (a) Vevel Pamp. 2013); Tibb3 v Florida 457 U.S.31.102 S.Ct.2211, 72 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1982) Meeaz V. State 785 S.w., 2d 146 (Tex. Caim. App. 1990).

*14 Applicant Second Ground: Applicant Received Cravel and unusual Purchment where the record reflects what He Received twenty- five years T.DC. But was Eligible for probation Applicant is aware that failure to raise an English Amendment objective at Tain postend making any such claim on appeal (Tes. R.App. 33.1 (a) Curry V. State 910 S.W. 2d 440 497(Tex. Coin App. 1995).

The Texas Rules of Evidence provide that in a criminal case, without in the Rule precludes taking notice of fundamental eeded affecting substantial right although they were not brought to the attractive of the court Tex Rule (Crim. Evid 103 (d).

Applicant contend that his sentence is disproportionate to the offence for which he was charged and violates the English Amendment to the United State Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, where the record reflects what He received a twenty-five year prison sentence from the Court Applicant contend that there is evidence in the record as required by Salem V. Helm 4463 U.S. 277 (1983) Reflection sentences imposed on similar offense in Texas or other jurisdictions. Salem V. Helm 4463 U.S. 277103 S.Ct. 300177 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1983).

The record reflects that Mr. Wype the applicant has above been converted in this state or any other state of a felony offense (C.R.TT-3). He indicated that he had never been abated or felony adult probators in this state or any other state in the United State (C.R.TT-54) Mr. Wype agree that he plot quilly to an offense because he was quilly and that he was coming to the Court the punishment and asking the court the money (C.R.TT-4) He agreed that he would be able to work and support his dependent and fellow the Courts. Rules (C.R.TT-4). Mr. Wype indicated that He was able to report once a month and was working down coordinating working as a painter and making approximately $2500 a month (C.R.TT-4,5) Mr. Wype stated that He has ten dependent, five of them are two-quee and the rest are little kids (C.R.TT-5) Mr. Wype stated that He has six natural childrers and the complanent were not his children (C.R.TT-5) He stated that if He was given a second chance He would be a better father (C.R.TT-5) Mr. Wype stated that He was 42 years old (C.R.TT-5)

*15 The recerd reflects what the wree was Eligible for probation and filed a Motion for Dobbation with the Couet perige to the PST hearing (Is. 1-26a)

Appliaint contends what a tiversity-five year sentence is grossly dispeoparilounte to the cerne in light of the fact what he has no pexor tetany conviction and has never been granted adult pabpation in this of any other state. in the United State. the fact what the Applioad was eligible for probation wibrates what other noused of the same ofthase, have been granted pabpation thus dillating sentences uspsed on similar oftause in Tewes of other Jurisdiction. Solem Y. Heln 463 (15.277, 103 S.Ct. 300,77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1989)

This Couet should reverse Applianity conviction and demand the case for further proceedings (Tew. 2. App. P. 43.264) Veerow Panph 2013 (Tev. 2. App. P. 44.2(a) Veerow Panph 2013) Tibbs V. Tharida 457 U.S. St. 102 S.Ct. 2211,72 L. Ed. 2d. 653 (1982) MeRAT V. State 785 S.W. 2d (44) Tev. Coim. App. (980)

*16

Appliant What Qround:

The Thial Couret erered in accepting letter from State containing unsuown victim in past Statement Requesting a life sentence without people, prior to sentencing

In Jahusson V State 280 S.W. 3d 346 (Ier Coins App 2299) the Couret of Cermual Aqpeak Reversed and Remanded hasling that a Jube has no discection to inpose Tail some as a conditioal of poobabiof Afted Tube Aenel aresubal and un-cross-ermined victim Allocutioal ascluding staterent that victim unated defordant eoge to Jail. The Courel noted what the purpose of article 42.03 se 10.) Tex Code Cain Procedure is to protect the tial Tube from any implicit or expleit accusative that He could be or would be influenced by the victim atocution statement It is the appoarence of possible willuence as much as the possible fact of influence what the status quants apanest.

Applicont's West Qround of Eziar the Defense Counsel Tolet is object to the wreduction of the unsuown victim in past Statement that were entered of to evidence before sentencing and whereby failed to preserve ERFOR or appeal. The Texas Rules of Evideace provide that is a Cerminal Case nothing is the Rules precludes taking notice of fundamental eRORs affecting Substantial Right Although they were not beaght to the attention of the Couret Tex Rule Caiminal Evideace 108(d).

The Complained of the unsuown victim in past statements were contained within the Pee- Sentence Investigation Report within the letters from the Sister Marisa C; Maribel G; and the conplaining withess, Anabel C; these unsuown statement were entered into evidence before punishment was assessed, the withess were not present to testify and therefore were unavailable for cross-ernumption at the punishment begering and before punishment was assessed. Ate Disface was excused and the State appeal that the State had provide the Couret with some letters which had been tumbled to the Defense Counsel (CR.II-10).

*17 The Defense Counsel had no objections to the letter being admitted to the PST report (P.R.II-8).

State's Exhibit 1, the PST report was agreed with evidence, Died in senterizing (P.R.III-12).

The letters from Marisa C. Maribel G. and the complaining address (Maribel C. B. B. and the complaining address was depted by the official 34, and the effect of the office on the victim. The letter signed by Marisa C. stated that the stress is overgahening, the feel like hee. Beyond will begin to judge hee and the request that the applicant be senterize to life in person without parole (P.R.IV-35). The letter signed by Maribel G. stated that she have what the applicant was give enough time to truly change (P.R.IV-36) the letter signed by Maribel stated that the applicant should go to person and stay where for life (P.R.IV-37).

Applicant contends that the error was not hopeless in this case the record reflects what the applicant was eligible for production (P.R.III-3.4). But was sentenced to twenty-five years T.D.C. Ahee the victim report statement requesting a life sentence were entered with evidence (P.R.III-13). The coefficient statute is both clear and explicit: debate 42.03 requires that the victim statement be read above the sentence has been imposed and above the Court has announced the terms and conditions of the sentence (Text Code Coin Price Aun def.42.03 Sec.1(6). Vexivon Sup. 2013).

Applicant requests that this Court reverse the Teral Court's Judgment and revicere the Judgment what the Teral Court should have Deutered: applicant requests that the Court supposed a finding of quilt and plate him on different adjudication portuities. If the applicant is not a perfect gebbathorere the Teral Court may showy abound the conditions of community service, we askne Teral Court as long as the condition is not whetherably connected to the victim's statement asking the person to be. Johnson v. State 236 S.U. 3d 346 (Text Coin App 2009).

This Court should reverse applicant conviction and quilt and the Judgment that the Teral Court should have deutered (Text P. App P. 43.2 (c) Vexivon Prop. 2013). (Text P. App P 44.2 (a) Vexivon Prop. 2013) TDSs v. Florida 457 U.S. 31100 S.Ct. 6211,78 L. Ed. 2d. 653 (1982) Meex v. State 795 S.U. 2d 146 Text. Coin App. (990).

*18

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore Premises Considered Applicant prays this Honorable Couet to consider each and every points of ERroers raised herein, to Deveese Applionts conviction and to order a Judgement of Reputtal as the law and Justice demand under the Tex. Com. App. P. 44. 29 (b)

Certitade of Service

I, ceetily that the Reptial Application the Memorandum is Suggest of Application the wreif of Haben Copps have been mail to the adles of Chers Cimicl Check Disted of. Bneels. Cenily. P.O. Box 4651 Houston, Texas or the II day of Denember 2015

Stave nfere "1857018 - Steve nfere "1858012 $12/11/15$ cefow

*19 EN THE CAKet of Criminal Apprais Austin Texas Casse NW. WX-83, 230-03 Expoete Stevie Wyree

WY W. the 179th District Court of Hades County Huston Texas Casse NW. 1864440-8

RECEIVED IN Appliont's General TENNES Reply to the States Response

DEC 212015

To the Howerette Judge of said Court: New Comes, Stevie Wyree Appliont of the Heve casce and Hlort this geveed Teaveese deind of the stutes as section to extote Hlort of section 3 (c) of the Tews Cute of Criminal Tencecture woping that the Curet had that whee is so neaessity the a heanity as any of Appliont Alligation.

T.

Ground Wie: Appliont Receited wellective assistance of censored at his Tew-secture investigation heacility where cenned 1). failed to object to cussuver section wopart statement catend who existence before secturing and 2). failed to object to the tiversity-the year secture as cevel and unusual pussions of voblenet of the Eplith Howeret where the zonal defects the Appliont was Eligible be perbution.

*20 Ground two: Applicant Received Cenel And unusual punishment where the Record Reflects that He Received twenty-five years T.D.C. But was Eligible for Probation.

Ground Three: The Trial Court EEREd in Accepting letters from the State containing unsworn victim impact statement requesting a life sentence without parole, people to sentencing.

II. Applicant would Assect that the State have failed to address his Motion filed in the Trial Court:

1. That Applicant be appointed Counsel to Represent his claims
2. What a Evidentiary Hearing be conducted to determine the End of Applicant's Allegation.
3. Applicant's Motion Requesting Leave to file Motion for New Trial to set aside a Sentence Based On the Law Plan of Actual Convocence and Pneffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Rule 21. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure.

In Applicant's Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Fact to place the facts before the Court in a Hearing that had not been Conducted.

None of These Motion have been edited on theough the Trial Court and be considered before the issues wee Newed to the Texas Court of Criminal Apeads.

*21

II.

Applicants Tenderse Apply is a common law pleading that dences the opposing piety allegation of thet, which all of applicants alligation should placed benned because. The States assection are with out merits and have no. Subjective Knowledge of information to them a belief concerning them:

Whoseflice Tension Censored, Applicat Deapls that this Housebye Court Censored the merits of his claims that in applicants 11.07 Application to Eellet 11. The above cause and all things coustaced.

Respectfully Subserted Skeive Myre 1858012 Easthmy 11112 Eddes Pence 8241 Londaly, Tewes 2857 pa-8e

Certificate of Service

1. Sneve Myre, ceetly that a tive and cased copy of the Bcequy was seced to the Mera Canly Costly. Cest office in accordance with the Tewes Ed of Cominl Therefore as this 4. day of November 2015

Sneve Myre 1858012 Stave Myre 1858012 $11/4/15$

*22 IN The Cuvet of Cuminol Appeals. Nustis Texas Cave No. WX-83 230-03 Ex pante Stevie Wyce

Applicants Request the Leane to the Motion that Tait Curet take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Fnet, Rule 201 Tex. R of Evid.

To The Noventile Juge of said Curet: Applicant, Stevie Wyce move this Houncable Curet to Grant Applicant's Request the Leane that Tait Curet take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Fnet, Rule 201 of the TEXAS Rule of Endence This Rule goveal only Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts: 1). A Juge have the authority to take adjudicative Notice of RActs, if Requested by a patey and supplied with the weressney Whermman is maidiotaty. 2). A Judicially Notice Facts must be give, net subject to Reasonable dispute in that it is Eattice U generally know within the reerctorial quesdiction of the Tait Curet 0R 2). Capable of accurate and ready determination by Resort to Sources whose decurney cannot reasonably be questionat. 3). A patey is entitled upon timely Request to an apperstunity to be hered as the peppricty of taking Judicial Notice and the sewer of the mattice noticed. In the absence of PRIDER notification, the Request may be made after Judicial Notice has been taken. 4). Judicial Notice may be taken at any time of stage of the preceeding.

*23

1. Applicant heæeby Regrest What the Coumt, Take Iudicial Notice of the 179. Distinct Count, Cleak of Haeris County Tens (Tecords) pretaining to Cause No. 1364440-B and heæeby designates and specifies the following matter for inclusion is said Records;
2. Index;
3. Endictment
4. All written motiod and plea agreement filed sigmed in this Count from the date of indictment to this date. by defendant;
5. Motion for Discovery of facts;
6. All written motion by the State and applicant;
7. All doekst Entries made in this Cause by any Budge Presiding;
8. All Count order heerin
9. Defendant's written notice of appeal;
10. All recommendation by the Courts;
11. Request for Report's tramscription of Notes;
12. Cleek's Records;
13. Reporters's Records;

*24

Wheertore Premises Considend, Hoplound Demys the Couet gowit his Pequest to take Tudiual Nibbie of Dots desigwoted in cause ND, 1364440 -B of the 179" Distant Couet of Moers Couly, Texas.

Certificate of Snevice

A Sneve Myec coetly that a tane and ceced apy of the Peregrity was scrued upou the 176" Distant Couet of Moers Couly, Cleats. Whice in accoedence with the Tebas Eule of Counuist Penceclue on this $4^{\text{th}}$ day of Noventive 20x5.

Sneve Myec "1858012 Sneve Myec "1858012

*25 In The Court of Criminal Appeals Austin, Texas WR-83, 236-03 Ex parte Stevia Wype

In the 179th District Court of Hneass County Houston, Texas Cruise W. 1364440-8 Chade Dr. Motio to The Judicial Notice

As this 4th day of November 2015 came on to be considered the Applicants Motio the Lease to Tide Judicial Notice of Hneass and the Court is of the Quarion court the Motio Should be:

Opport Deviesl

Dassidley Jucye day of