Eligah Darnell, Jr. v. Steven McCraw, Director of Texas Department of Public Safety

nia, 19-24-00 49-ci [-13 FILED IN 45th COURT OF APPEALS 2025 ELIGAH DAeNELL Je 2 a IN THE CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE APPELLANT 7 m FIFTEENTH Couct of Appeals V ) Austi TEXAS Feceman MActiN, Orecetor, Texas 3 DEPARTMENT pt PUALIC onteTy, 3 APPELLEE ON APPEAL From THe 9.9 0TH Digtacr Couer [MVS County, Texas " REHEARING Motion A eee ee To THe HowotA®Le Couc¢r: APPELLANT, ELGau DARNELL SR, , Files His motion for A Reticaeme To THIS Coucts MAY 8,2026 Jyoment 2-18 PoinTS Relico on For Revenge eTHE Court Has mane AN IMPROPER LUIBERL Consteuction of APPELLANTS "UtTeA VIRES Clam §, o THE Couet Has NoT Appueo THe lecal ®Tawoaros AdsocuteD ; 7 WITH APPELLANTS ‘UlTeA Vives Cums © THE Couet Has NoT PECIDED THE 'Ssue of WHETHER, OR, NOT, THe Subothatrial Simi taerny Test IN Anonymous ApulT 582 Did S31 (tex. App. Austin 2012) Appries “Tp THe Ops s AOnunisteatve fitones IN THis CASE ° "THe CoueT WAS WoT DEcpEN THE RES DuorcaTA- Coluyreral ESToppél Claim * THE Couet HAs MIS ComsTevED APreuanTs Claims fo« Prospective Indunctive ReWef , Ano Det ueatoay TUnemeEntt Rect Argument 3-18 "Court Finoines: tt Liberally ComsTeuinG 15 pleapinG6s, DARNELL Claims THAT MARTIN Has farled To RECoGNItE THat HE WAS REeQguieco To REGISTER AS A Sex OffenDER for A Now EXPILEO Ten YEAR PERIOD Ano wot for Life Awo, Ao A ResulT, ToT maenin Has AcTeo Utrka Vikes By RefusinG To Remove Him feom THE dex offenoer RE GIsTay MAINTAINED By Ppa’, » THE PRoPer Lieral CONSTRUCTION 15 As fo llows: CHAPTER bo 2 Texas £O0E of Cuminal PRocEouee VesTeo OPS IWiTH Tue ¥ “v ADministeaTivE AuTapety To Make Substantial Otmlaety Finownes REelAaTEO To Akt. &2.01(6)s OTATUTORY Definition fog 2b @)(I) TEX. Penal Cook , APPEUanTs 1989 Conviction in cause Corot [- AT 26-27 suoement- OZb47ol- W infoemnationt ) Avo To DETERMINE THE PRopeR Dumtion of ReGisteation Requieements for A RE PoeTaBle CONVICTION. Seé Anowymoys AdutT 382 9.0. 3d 531 (Tey, 2012).

However ) App, Austin OPS Director Has &¥ceepen His Leo Autiorsty To INTERPRET Ano APPLY Stere law Wu ERE As HERE ArcumentT- Cont U-19 Olt, 027 TeX, GovT CoOE Limits DPSS Constauction of ART. 62.08 (0) ¢ STATUTORY Dcfinrtion Te The 1993 AMENOED VERSION OF ZN QO) TEX, Penal Co0E EM 900; 73500 leg. ns, $4, 91 in WHicH ENumeéeaTeO 2Zl.d/ (OXI) TEX. Penal Co 0€ To AMT H2A2 5€¢, Bg@IQ) Tey, CODE Chim, Proc ETF- 9-1-93, THE SuPeeme Couer HAS ExXPRessly SIATEO WHEN ONE STATUTE REFERENCES AwoTHER STATUTE, ONE MUST Look Ty Tye REfERENCEO STATUTE TO UNDERSTAND Tite REFERENCING STATUTE. Se€ In RE Roxx 159 SW 2d 185 (rey 1998) Hotowme “on THe OTHER Hawo, WHEN THE Referencep STATUTE 15 AMENDED oR Reviseo, THE RefERENCING UTATUTE INCORPORATES “The OR REVISIONS (crting ) OM, O27 TE, GovT Cone AMENOM ENTS THE Referencing OTATUTE, 10.) Akt, 6 2.01) CCP, INCOR PoRATEs ZUM GIO) Tex, Penal Co0e As Amenoen WW CHG00 | Pol (993 Bro le 4 ARGUMENT- Cont 9°18 Record EVD ENCE SHOW Appellants 1499 Comids (Tio nd OFFENSE, (cR.Vol |- AT 33°34 -ToeT tase Summ A Ry ) UNDER THESE facts ANO law, APPellanr$ 1789 CONVICTION LAUDE OFH4oI-W 49 Wor "Substantially Similak To ZIM @IO) Tx. Penal cooe Referencep In Agtb2. of G) C.C.P's LEE} Ls OG) Definution, 5€€ Substantial Ot lagety Te sy IMPLEMENTEO By THE Beo Couer of Appeals in Anonym ou § AdulT 389 SWi3d 531 (rec, APP Aust 2012), ADOTonALLY, Appeyrnrg yk ¥7 THe lecal Staronens FoR Orcroite *Utten VIRES Clams IN Hall v MckAVEd 508 5, wad 739 (Tex. 2011) uo Housto w bel 487 5,0. 3d prise. (Tex), OPS'S Resteeteo Auttoe ry UNDER BN.027 Tey Govt COE | ANO His Disceerion To INTER pect Ano APPLY CH.O2 CoP, WAS NoT AB So Lute, Heee, OPS Has EXCEEDED THE Limits of UV5 Autioety unpéer 3U.027 Tex, f Govt cooE Ano APPuEep AQT, (02. Of) 5 STATUTORY Definetion lo lB fo THE [489% ConvicTioN in CAUSE O3b4Hbl- YW) (CR. Vol LAr 4-45 ) THe PRE-RELEASE NoTihicaTiION SHow DPS Has INTERPRETED THE STMUTOLY Octinont in Tee (Referee cine Stanute) Akt.o2.01 6) ¢,¢,p AS APPlYwWG To THe (Reference STATUTE - AMENDED VERSion Iw CH, fa0 ) 1189 Conviction cause O5eTol-W, DPS Has Violatep THE funoamental Com PonENTS of AN “Ute VIVE ON if Claim Basen Actions Taven WiTHouT LeGal Autuy ok (TY jC) Aur Hoeiry GWiNG Some Rut Wot ABSolute DiScReTION TH AcT Ano (2) conouer outsi€ of tar AUTHORITY, Houston Beitr 467 IW 3d ATISB Alt. 6942 O) TEX, CODE CQm. Proc, IMPOSES liferme REGISTRATION for offenses Defineo in Att.62.01G) c.cp AS NoTeO Here, Appellants 1999 conviction tn CAUSE O304YOI-W PYogs NoT Qualify for THe STATUTORY DEefiniTion 140 Aeiu2oiG) ns y7 a i RefeRenceS THe AMENDED VERSION Ini CH. 900 $4.01 Leg Perera RE )73RO- for 21. G30) Tey, Penal Coné, DPS RECOROS’ Awe OnLine INFORMATION INCoReEcTLY Let Lifettone Re Gisteation " ( CR.VoL | “At 2I4- Zi) 7-18 ARGUMENT- Cont / DPS KecorOS Ano online Information Also ler Tue Vierem In Tie 1989 convict ON CAUSE O3b4YYOI-W) Ys A ce po feo (caVoltar 21-21 ) DESPITE CONVICTION Records MowinG A Famly memBer, Cce.Vob t- Ar 162 ) pps Has wo Lecal Autorry To MisiuterPect Th 1€ LAW Ano PuBlisH False INfoRMATION In STATE AND ONLINE Recoeos, APPELLANT Has A “Substantive ANO’ Proceepuent’ Dué Process Rist? UNOER THe l4Ty AMENDMENT IN HavilG OPS Comply WITH Statutory law Adio Recor EW oENec, INTUNCTIVE Relief THE Rete APPELLANT Seen ARGUMENT. ContT O18 ActinG Wettout \eoal AutHoary , uttea vices ) Bt ReporrinG FALSE InfoRMaTiON Apo DEEKING To ReQuike CL, To REGISTER AS A DEX OFFENDER foe A Lifetime.

STATEMENT foR REWEF In ORIGINAL Petition APPeLladtrs ORGINAL Perction Soucur Relief To compet Dps t if DIRECTOR |Mcleaul. to Refoem esnare RECORDS “To Refleer Conkect information, (ca, Vol -Ar 5-18 ) TH Vs tf Court Has RECENTLY DECIDED SEVERAL Cases InveLUING UTRA Viees Claims for Reuef Ago APPLIED SuPeeme Couer OTANDARPS “To RESoi VE THOSE CASES AS WELL AS Recogo EVIDENCE And TIATUT ORY law KelieO on To Deun€ Titos~ CASES WHICH Aer AS Follows + 1) Young V TEX, PARKS + Wilo Le DEPT Nol5-24-a0082-cv (Ape 24, 2025) (consiogreo Scope of Officials AuTHoRHY AGanisT LeGal AuTuoertics Citep ) 15-24- @0007-cv (Apa 3, 2025) 2) Mopar V Kintsvi We ime 5 cH, Dist No, (Same) ARGumENT- Cont 4-18 3) State V CTY of San Marcus NoWS-24-00084- cv (Ape 17,2025 ) Cciteo Ano APPUEO SuPpREme CoueT AutHoerry ) 1) State V cre) of Austin Wo, 15. 24-oo077-ev (Aen 24, 2025) (ame ) 5) Paes V Rw Teoply RaneH, iro (Consioge¢o Live Petition NO115- 24- oN2-cV (Apert to, 2025 ) ) USING BUOES AWD STATUTORY la) CiTEO) yl if APPELANT Has Clear Ano ConvincinG Recoeo EVWOENCE THAT SHoe) OPS ONlWe RecoKos Reflect Incoeecer Intoemation (CR. Vol | AT 214-210) Anup (ce, Voll -AT 162) yet, THiS Couet AppEARS To Have DisreGaeoeo These facts, Apreuant Has crtéo Oupeeme Ccouer AuttorTy IN IN KE ROS 154 SW2d 185 (Tex,1998) Ano 31,027 Tex, GouT Cope To JuPPOeT His Uttea Vives” Claim AS WeEu As Wall Mckaven. ’ il AND Houston Bett » THIS CoueT Has Wot Resoeteo To Any Of THE REColo Evtoewce be AutYoernies citeo By Appellant RESOLWE THE Claim PRESENTED, f lO-18 ArGumentT- cont al if ¢ Appélinnt Has Also PResenten J UNDISPUTED — Coltwreeat EStoppel ~ RES JUOICATA Claim As follows: Record EVIDENCE IN TES, AprelaNT WAS CHARGED WITH UNUWfuly Caeeyine of A WEAPON WITH An EnlHaNcement AlleGrtion listing THE 14969 convictiog In CAUSE 04044 o] -W for ENHANCEMENT To BkO DEeceec TElomy \ / (ce. Vol {-at 251 - Infoemation ) THe Stare Announceo Nor Ready ON HI5-4 IN Ant Effet To PRoouce EVIDENCE of A Viol OffENSE for Purposes of Hle.05 TeX. Penal Cone (cp, Vol l~ AT 252) THe case WAS CONTINUED To [1-22-41 WHeee THe REJECTED THE STATES EVIDENCE In OurLORT OF | T'S ENHance- ~ MENT ALLEGATION Ano THEN Sentencen TUE ApPE laNT To MISDEMEANOR PunisllmenT UNDER TE MPENAL CODE Yu,02 Cceavol {-Ar2s2-253) ») CNT CoukT ARGUMENT: CostT [{- 19, Tex Penal CODE 4.06 — Renng: Unlawful Poss of A Firenkm BY A felons “A PERSOM WHo Has Ren ConvicTeO of A felony InVoluNG An AcT of Violence OR THREATENED VIOLENCE To A PERSON op PROPERTY Commits An OFENS If Ue Possesses A firearm AvhY From ‘Tite FRemises WHERE HE Lives, (b) An OFFENSE UNDER Ths Section 1s A FEloWY of THE Tinep DeGkee”’ (AmeNoEO in 3.8, 07, 73.0 LEG R. 1993 )To Tey. penal cone Ho.04 APPEWANT'S Res JUOIATA COLIATERAL ESTOPPEL AegumentT recy To THe Extent DPS Has Apoprep A “Irreeal Con'sTeuction of THe Statutory Oefinetion “SeKuAlly Violear Often 3¢ IN Att. 62.01 (6) Tex. CODE Cem. Peo. Ano APPLIED TH) Definition To THe 1989 CONVICTION IN CUS5e 020446). Wd IN EEC, OPS 15 Reungoting Ay ISSUE Previously DETERMINED AGAINST THE Strte bY A Valin AND efOQ AeGument- Cont 2-13 tial JUDGMENT In cAUsE OUSUYEB (ceVol b- AT 252-253) Aa To IMPLUATE Res Tuorcara: Collateral Estoppel” TE Re CW PROC. WH Lpenrehes Red JuATA AS An AFfirmani ve Défense. SE Viet Team v Ritter N0,03-22- 00b70-cV Crew App Austin June 21,2024) “Prectuswve efter of PRIOR Tuoémenrs “ THe OuPkeme Couer Has IOENTITICO Reo JUOLCATA AS AF Gem vE DEFENSE. EAGLE OIL + GAS Co. VT R (Tex,2021), Coulatémal EStoprel Wouly Also Bag DP5 ftom Adopting A Consteuctiont of Acr.o2.01@)s OMTUTORY Definition SEXUALLY VIOLENT” 5 APPlyne To The Ener 1989 Conviction IN CAUSE O3644 Ol W wWHeee J PREVIOUS TuoGmENT TA CAUSE O45 4488 COUNTY Cormival Covet NUMBER TEN TARCANT COUNTY (TEXAS, DeTeemmeO THe Ame 1999 CONVICTION WAS NoT Classitiep A‘ Violent Offense” UNDER Texas LAW IN 1989 (cp Vol (AT 25)- 253 ) eo Brown VFREEO IYp, 93 -2I- 00554 -¢y (Tex. Ape Austin 2023) Bare Vv Resotunion TR. CoP 837 51 2d 627 (Tey 1992 ) 0-X) Lihy bol 9 S,u3q 699) 705 «| ACGUMENT- ConT (S16 THE effict of DPSS Consteuction Ano APPlCATION Of Cth o2 CCP, Leaps To A Resutt THAT Woulo Re-litigATE AN [OSUE, 1-0) WHETHER THE 1988 ConlviCTION IN CAUSE O30 44ul-oJ WAS clasiifien A Sexually Violent” offense inl 1999 ALREADY DETERMINED AOVERSELY AGainst THe 10, AN ISSUE, OMTE PRe Viadsty THIS Claim HAS WentT UNDISPUTED Ann THys Couer H A5 Nor DECIDED THIS AFiiemative DEfewse issue.

“THE Court Suomenr-- ae INOINGS INCORREETLY OTATE | ‘A cLoeo tet To DARNELL, ID AT THE Teme Of Ws 1969 CONVICTION, THe offens€ of CHILD WAS nor Classiftcn THE MANOATO RY SUPER VY INOECENCY WITH A THe APPe Uaars’ Agcument SHouwo Have Beew @§8 SAYING Bis O45 44g 5 N86 (cr, Voll AT 251-253 ) Anip STATE law ITsEUf, “| ARGUMENT- ConT MD ct "And (A) THe offewse of INDECENCY WITH A CHILO Was NOT Classified AS A SEXUALLY Violent offense” UNDER CH. b2 UNTIL THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED IN 1997", THE Appellants AkcumenT PRopeely CONSTRUEO, 15 That INDECENCY WiTH A CHILD DIO Not Become Classified As A Sexually Violent offense UNnoER TEMS LAW Unt ACMY212 SEC, 36 QO TEx. cooe Ceim Proc, WAS Amewoco 6.) TEX, PENAL COE 2b @IOQ) was Amenpen In CU. 900, 7300 LEG, RS.) 9664.01 Ano ENUMERATED Te het 42.12, SEC 39 @)C)TEX. Cove Cem. Roc, EFF-9-}- GA * THE Couers finoiwes Alsop INCORRECTLY Reans in OHeLT, DAaené Ul !

CONTENDS THAT CHAPTER lo2's Definition of A SEXua lly ViolENT OFFENSE“ cannoT BE RETROACTIVELY APPUEO To His 1964 Conviction for indecency WITH A Curio“ APPELLANTS ARGUMENT Pro PERLY €ConsTeuE 0,15 THAT DPS DIRE OR EXCEEDED StaTuTopy Autor ry in Blho27 ArGument- cont IS “18 TEXGOVT CODE By MioinTeRpeerns Aer o20IG)'s Definition Sexually Violen offense, As Applyiw6 To THE 1989 conviction DESPITE THe 1993 Amewoments IN CH 900 Cimino Tie AMENDEO VeRsion OF 21 OO Tex, Penal CODE To OFFENSES OCCcue RWG ON OR » D€C,YU01 SavinGs Clause,. Moreover , OPS Had commtren An iLlecal ACT, ulTéa Viees, By EXCEEDING “OTATUTORY Autuoe ry Limreo By 3lt.029 TEX. GOUT CODE | ° THE Couet finoin6s Als INCORRECTLY OTatE + “G. THE EXTENT Darnell CHAUENGES CHarTER (2's KeTRo ACTIVE APPUGTION AS UNCONSTITUTIOWAL, THe LEGAL THEoR y ME LITLESS , THE APPELLANTS Claim PRopEelY CoSTRUED, 15 NoT Thar CH 2 5 Arrucuation KeTeoactwely Oenyes DUE PROCESS, [67/5 ArGumenT- Cont Appellant Has ExpresstY Arcveo THT DPS's Cowste- “UCTION OF AT 2.01 (6)'3 ExXceEOS Lparts Placeo OY BI.027 Tex. Govt COOE Wicd Uns Altib2.01 (6) 5 Oefintton To Te 1993 Amenoeo VeERSi0W Of Zl @O TEX, PEWAL CooE | SEE IN RE RTT. 959 OiWi2d 185 (Tex, 1998) Excceoine strmvroey Limits IN Btl.027 TEX. GOVT Cong Violates Oue Process HTH AMENO MENT, UNTA- Unttoem DetlneTory Junement 15 Effeeric To Declare APPELLANTS STATUS Ano RIGHTS UNpEQ CH. GD ONE OPS 15 DikEecTEOD To ComPly Witt THe STATUTORY LimiTS ON Hts Disceetion tw OWO2Z7 TEX: GOVT CODE 17-10 Prayer _ For THESE REASONS, ELIGAH DARNELL oe, REQUESTS THAT THIS CouRT RECONSIDER THE PReviouy JUDGMENT, GRANT THIS Motion! for RewcarinG, WiTHORALS THE PRioR OPINIOM AND JUDGMENT, AnlO 155uE An OPiatod AND JUOGMENT GRanTinG Reucf To Tie APPELANT on ANY Pow RAISED HEREIN, EUGAH PARWELL Te) Also Requests Any OTHER Reuef to WutH He Wal Be EntiTleo, on Tig 13TH pay (7) “ APeettawt [3-18 Certficaté of Seavies A Teue ANDO Coreech CohY of THe Appellants Motion For RetleaaintG Has Pcen PLACEO IN THe U.S.MalL ADDRESSED To: Vishal v Tyee Office Of THE ATToeNeyY GENERAL LAW ENforcemMENT Defense DIVISION POrBOX 12592 AUSTIN TEXAS 7 971-2542 on THi9 OTH pay of __MAY 2.025