X)&t<mkzr30 )2o\H

_i »j-

jTf? Abfel Ac*sWQ#iV*l£Lferk Ai.-j. ^ /»„i ; / A i RECEIVED IN

, L -JAN-O5-2045 ffvi! Oew S"<g Uz.NVr-Hn<o z, AbeS Acosfa, Clerk

•[> PUn^e iiggUide 4jig.se. &N§ln&Ls in-UuL Appendix

£ i2« My r>£^ r^Aip^s is : Maw-I Se$MlA Unfa, ti-S0) ; ik?i ggis-f £L ^j)oUrj/, EAiwWj^^Lg^y^L

jS^.l^O1^ AS-s/ys-Wvfc^ /s q^d^f-ly apfP&Ci&M?J.Tl^mlC _y.0JA^_

Rtsptyhf-ydLLy}Sgiw/fe-i

Aff>&LLwh Pfti 5e ahc&onwii CAUSE NO. 2008-CR-1459

20!': J.. : ::; A \b i\ 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS/ FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN BEXAR COUNTY/TEXAS

JERRY SOLIZ MARTINEZ

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

A MOTION OF AN OUT-OF-TIME APPEAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE 437th DISTRICT COURT

TO THE HONORABLE)JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Now comes/ Jerry Soliz Martinez/ Appellant pro se and respect fully moves the Honorable 4th Court of Appeals to hear the following Out-of-Time appeal/ to the orders issued by 437th District Court's on July 2nd/ 2013. The orders in the form of conclusions of law were issued in response to a form 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus (2008 CR 1459-Wl), submitted by Appellant on October 12th, 2012, contesting his conviction. In support of this appeal Appellant brings forth the following grounds and would show the Court,

I.

1/ the Appellant wa3 convicted and sentanced in the 437th District Court of Bexar County/ Texas/ of Indecency with a Child/Contact, on the 22nd day of June/ 2011. n.

The Trial Court' committed fundamental error when it unilaterally added un-negotiated terms to the plea agreement. Appellant was prejudiced by the Trial Court's order given June 22nd, 2011, vol. 2 pg. 26, (court transcripts) and attempted to correct on July 2nd, 2013. The Affirmative finding of a 3g offense, is prejudicial towards Appellant's incarceration in the form of an un-negotiated punishment and added collateral consequences on Appellant's conviction and sentence." This added punishment was not negotiated in the plea agreement coerced by attorney's for the Appellant and prosecutor's office. Also, the enhancement was never read or mentioned by an/one at the trial date setting of April 6th, 2011, vol. 1 (court transcripts).

nr.

The pronouncement, of "I'm making an affirmative finding of a 3g offense," by the Honorable Judge on,pg. 26, vol. 2, (court trans cripts) was made without any legal reasoning or investigation into the proof needed of the un-negotiated punishment on Appellant. The Trial Court's attempt to correct the record is not a "clerical error," but is a judicial error in which Trial Court must have used legal reasoning behind such an order. The pronouncement of this enhancement has the effect of adding stricter requirements on Appellant's liberty, which are afforded citizens through Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitu tion and the Texas state Constitution Art. 1, sections 10 & 19. Also added are the collateral consequences associated with the Tex. C. C. Proc. Art. 42.12 3(g) and the requirements of Chapter 62/ Sex Offender Registration Program.

W.

The Trial Court failed to inform Appellant by a timely notice of the amount of time required by T.R.A.P. 25.2 (h) "Advice of Right to Appeal." In the conclusions of law#9, the Trial Court ruled tnat "Appellant was not subject to an affirmative finding of a 3g offense." The admonishment is a judicially fundamental error that did induce collateral consequences. The legal question asked by Appellant is what "Legal reasoning" did the Trial Court have when nothing was ever mentioned on April 6th/ 2011, (court trans cripts) Vol. 1.

V.

Counsels were ineffective for not investigating this enhancement. Also, if Appellant would have been advised of the time required to file an appeal of the Trial Court's order, he would have filed the required motions per T.R.A.P. 26.2(a), 26.3(a)(b) and, 10.5(b)(1)(2). Appellant would have used due dilegence, while attending a six hour vocational course (Horticulture) at Diboll Correction Center.

VE

Furthermore, this error is of fundamental standards and Appellant would ask the Honorable 4th Court of Appeals to vacate his con viction or return him to the original position.as he was before the coercive signing of the plea deal, on April 6th, 2011.

YH.

Wherefore, Premises Considered, Appellant moves the Honorable 4th Court of Appeals to make specific findings as to the contro verted issues of fact concerning the orders of the Honorable 437th District Court. Appellant prays the Honorable 4th Court of Appeals to hear the motion of appeal and rule on its merits, and return Appellant to his original position before April 6th, 2011, or vacate his conviction and set aside his sentence. Appellant prays the Honorable 4th Court of Appeals to instruct the 437th District Court to issue orders for the release of Appellant from cdhfinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, at the Goree Unit, 7405 Hwy. 75 South, Huncsville, Texas, 77344. App ellant forever prays.

Respectfully submitted,

Appel'lant Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the day of , 2014, a true and correct-copy of the above and foregoing Motion to Appeal was transmitted and delivered to the office of the Bexar County District Attorney, Cadena-Reeves Criminal Juscice Center, 300 Dolorosa, San Antonio, Texas, 78205.

ORDER

On this the day of , 2014, came to be heard Appellant's Motion to Appeal and said motion is hereby,

( ) GRANTED ( ) DENIED

Signed this the day of ,2014.

Judge Presiding . cause \n.ioof\cRvtxq

IN THE FOURTH COURT0FAPPEALS, JUDICIAL DISTRICT, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

EY PARTE JTfRRY SOLiz. IvURTTNEZ: vs.

THE STATE OFTEXAS AMOTION TO SHOW CAUSE •

ftEJCOURTQFAPPEALS NO, ; 04-14-00%8-CR TRIAL COURTCASE m;3008CRlW TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES', FOURTHCOURToFAffEALS: Comes n«w, Jerry SpLiz l\Ac\p+Mez, Appellant Pro Se and respec+fully mcvts-H\e Honorable WH Court erf Appeals 4© hear -Hie AAo-ficn-h?3hiw Cawe '6? hls*Od+-0<C-Tii»e Appeal" -ftUJon ^\ne30lX{>lLjJpuns.mKt-b+h<>cf'MCe>ctrt O-P AfpnoiU cries daAei July 18,2.0^. AppelUtyf W<wLd submit-ttie-&Li«>w/Mg; I. JURISDICTION T^ia+'t4lls Hon. Cour-f £>•£Appeals re£ednsJurisdiction-fa dflWW sald'0u4-^-T/w«/J-fP^L' p^^ ^ T-R,A,p, proceeds it\ Lrtmicsai cascs, gUnfe/i * 5tofo\ 36^ &W-MSW t ^OH (Je*.CrmApf>. aenaj; ex Parih NELftW, 1375 w, 3d ^ ^

PLEA FDR LIBERAL SCRUTINY Tb&4 \jp\At AppeLL^nf respectfully urge -Eertke Honorable Court ofAppzcls to c*As4r«e saU^Ou^^TIm ftfife*l" Lf+firfcUy , y#t\r afpe-ll&rfr is (K layman cxtUvt, amdshauU Vwtbt held "hti\e Zawie ^+r/«gent s4^ia^s ^ CPa-ft* n^AHsMp fp<Lsent<d hy Attorneys*

COMFJA/EMEA/T ahd RESTfWr

unauthorized juAgmea-f-and comtMm in cause WOfttRiHSy^ h* the exLLegei of-hns* sf v'Wed^ey uw Mchild-ttM&ct' ^?a\6 orttnse Is <Mst&e& to ham &cca^pei pn o^ak&ttf Dzc* 31sl, WU* On Apr. 6+K, aoii, a.ppe,LU«4-«x-fk*' pLmlincj nc4gailL4y -&>r «?ver 0)yec\f5j w<*s coerced #n+o cbscMGjincj his pLea fo gaiLfy bdW lie Hc?n- HB14^ B/s4p/c4 £<?k/*f, a*. IN THE

COUAT OF CRIMXNALAPPE AtS, AUST1H7TEXAS EX PARTE JERRY SOLIZ *AWJINEZ c^™ !5peau V5# JAM 05 2015

THE STATE OFTEXAS AbeiAcosts,

Av PETITION FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW : TO THE HDNOW\&£ COURT OF CKttlttAt APPEALSI RE IHTH COURT Of APPEALS mlOH- N- OOH 68- CR TRIALCOtm HO- / 200BCRW5**

C\ni -files +Wis Pe4Hfon -for Dfecre'hVwi&ry Review. jr> Supfofi o-f Wu's pc+f-Kw )+ta -&LUi/)iwj m-Pofma+fott ctv\& QfounJs c*re provided puP$\A<Afl± \oTR-A.R 6£, f£ ani-ciks DeQ-r*Vv« Sfcte-,. lia $W ad 755(T€x.CW^%. Iwj,6«c! TR.A.P..Sl.'l^, I. PLEA f 0R L18ERA1 SCRUNiTY

Y«?uir Pe-hti0fcer> r«sp«ef-ft4ly:pr*yV -Por+heHwoffihU CquPt or

.'fWi+Jpinetf i* 0, t^y/w^d ^+tc-wrav\J <xsks +(•>#+ta tot be held

• (,; :. To -Hie scrvje S'fringeirt' S"W<Wds 6>^ Cf#-£f*vw\s|i</> presep4eJ fey Mvrpey's. U. mA.P. 6M; (CX) I<kr>4Hy Q$ 3w<j§e, P^fHes #p»<l Consul Court of Afpe*U,' HTH tourtoHffetU, 3l»<Jtci*l D» s+rfct/fri Sciia An'b-njo, Tex^sj

Tri*l Ccuf* JH51TH TwJ/c^t DTs+r^^in Bax&rCvwty, Texas HorwfcbU tori VaLenzuieLfc] $rc*±e tfos-tcuriaq A+^^«yji?0;8ox'i3©H^v-Aas+»n,Tgx«f,7r7//-3</^; fW+ies :Ex p^VTwy SolithfS^rtimt.TOCl^on^H^Ji]

{&) T<*en+»-ty <?-f Tud^e jPfrf+ies ewd-(bahreL'•»»»'* (.11/

(6\ S-bcWrwwt or* rhe c<kie * »'•$ »'••••".••• • f')

(9) Gr<?w^<!s*i ^e?ne; ju^/sdjtf/(?M *fe rev>ew /j) V ^ 9 0

GcQuthi^+wo; Court o-t-'Afpz&li w'(uortrw&T>%>h9> 3>t j#k Jcon-tilch with c>4far Court erf flpf>ed<**~*(o) Q(je?4rc?n \ '• S\n.QyL\r&ty\*CoM^0$-CtiwP.6lAfee*l s Ctfrft £y ,Ty. f .f. PfW. ^rl, |'|,07 f 3^ ^J T.R..A.F.. 7>\fiw-&set pr*ttJe^tfjtfrfsdfof/w va;•* (jQ (W Arcjwime^4- . •' '• (5) ' (A) Pr^yef Ar r<?tie# ™ (J) Apfe«<Lix 6°)

(3l D'etre v. $4&+<?( 7IK.w,^75J(^.^.^J^) ,. „ (j] f'OOe fWftV* SM*, 56^3^16(1^;^

(6) Ex f»rte R«'cb, |<HS.W.3<J50#fex Cm.fiff.mb)*.., (3), H) E*.p*Mc SfciiiHftke.Wi^.ldWifl&^.-^^/qflYjwi'W).

(10)^^5 v. sfate,8QSW3Mtt(Te%J^

l\ 5) !«*** Cojf-Cr/rifyi tfoiefofes) Article IhOl$3fr) o* *, (l) (f&)7gx*s'p«ta O^^itii^e'ft4uiv^^i^ii:'^\-0900-'- tj) f17)Tex** Rtfte* 0-f /J$>elUfc-PfOtek^i R*^ M?t 9900 ' 0) U9)7&»^ Rub* <rf Afte'Ltik foe*$te4 Ruk0t 0999 ti)