6?*-/5 InThe, ORIGINAL Court Of Criminal Appeals received in AP T COURT OF CRSHiNAL APPEALS M 10 2015 Abe! teste, Clert Jv/Yvnu U6U>CiyflL HilL Peimo/ver.

Co5e(\fo..

IbtJWt Of leydS^ 3 court ofcriminal appeals Respondent, jun iozc:5 Abel Acosta, Clerk Feffhon for U6Cfemnar^ Reweio To The, l-Wwtoble, Jus4fce Q£ SaiVJ Courf,' Mouv) Corns <3mwy DeoJaynt HilL ^ftfmooev^ fa me above en\\Mecl oncl fiu/nherec) Cou^-t (hd ftWea-fulL se-eks review end ftmo^d aPhis Cost 4o \\it Fifm . Dislriij Gu"")" Of Appals 4o'r -fur41w proceeding in A\nt •iirrle/YS-f oPJustice ch^/ wSupport u;ouU shouj 4W\S COUrT ,' PfonvLfJ HMnry 1. On CTI-bl-dOO^ \\\t PfWiWr en4W On Open Pitt of &ull4y frJ a ptaa of cjuil4y/4r^e, 4o \\\t e/\\w\c- mmi D(xCCA(AfaA)<> .alleged iV) lh^ V)dic4w^1ivCCE 8. lKU) to \\)t Qftftvte of koQfMcAed Rokbrnj u>i4li & D^dluWeaOon Id uj»4 ! /I Motor V^hicfe .as all^rJ fn4lie 1.

i*"^'^ indic4/Y)^'l«(Cft8N) Xn 4W, 3t3rJ XdiZiJ b\s4fie7 CW4 Of Dallas G^4uJ€/a$. in Cause No. Fof)-53583-W.

3, On O7-9H-9O0<i the Tna) Court dihcmintcl 4W4k • evfdenc^ Subst^tia^ ed not/ plea end _deftrficl an ady ud\"con\bn oP gu/14 aad pieced the, p&rihbner ai 5' ^ears Probation ft\d in4er Jia ofdef/.d 4h^ peAmhnZr .

4o atl^d SAPPF CSubsWeAbuSeFdaAjPu/iisli/n^ Tatilmj) 3, The PeTiTlbner regained InW&faTtd rfom the cfarc of arfest (bH-0t-9009) l/v^/ He was releasee/ -fro™.

SAEftF u^v) Success-C) c^plefc/) (se6?Cft 33.^50^ LA)Wreupo/i the p^liPia/?^ W'jnau'ftfrw 4o ofitend a feSfderti^ -\f&Aj\fv\V)\ 4&cJiTu pursue!4o Th^lfia Courts Order Cs^.' GR. 93^) st Help Is ftsslbU /Dak 5. Peck S4«Ddk%T/« therein 4\ae Petitioner <jfWv-/ from awfo^aldy IOHO-90IO i/rJil OH0-90I1 aJ Six- CtSshWu dlsch&rcjtd 5d\d ^co^afY).

L\- Tlnt_ Petitioner Subse^u^/iny ViblaTdJ tt)e4erAnS ^hd Conditions of Wis proWrion 0\d uaas affesied or\ 03-l8-80lkfrJ Qo 05-06-30/f 4b^ P*+]fen«r Pl^d Tfue 46 the ReYot&Tio/) GltajatWiS' 4or an tiafud upon e&\\v\CL oP WYears TDO u/ith the Pe+rhbvurs bc^k W Credits from 04-0b-200<i LhW 05-ttrPOI as stipulated in the Pk Aspewimt (see,' CI?, 3x33s) 5. On OH9-3013 Petitioner P»U an App)ic^on Fortyni Of Habeas Corpus 6no,ilmcj]n^ 4h?. valfdiP^ of his Cowidton ihdir Ar4icl<? itOT tCP Gad Seeking enforcprneA of Die plec &QfiUn(s<\ For pfe-s#4w£ bad 4iW Cfedrfs sd\d application UAS d(Stm\9S^d pursuant to GbvemmcA Cod^t 55&l.0o8K cntillary cause r\o, WM62683-Vi/^.CC4.Wfif Wo.-77.978-03. !o. Oh IS~I7'?01J Pekhbntr fePiled Or\ Afn\\c6Tion For 'Writ Of rkWaS (brpui dnJWjing 4W va)Jity of his CanViL,4ioA caJ 5eek>7^ en\orc<>(v\pA or fht, pUa aafei- rfl£nts' stipulation £dr pft-SsaWe. back 4/W credds Said GppliccdWi u&s dtmed uiffboat ujriTTfn Ofd^rN ' ViouJever jhe 4nal Court in Yrk fecjo^MendaTwn Smcd 4W 4he Pdvnbner u&S -enPitW to his bach 4iW CCedA( end 4Uat the Cdu/4 ujouU Issu^ a nunc pro tt^i^ ord<?r auJarcJiing 4ke Petitioner his bck 4i/n£ cn?dm purSu^ 4o Ar4ick *».»1 9 C.C.P. (NO Order Was Entered): Chdllfiru ause w, W0^-535'83-WCB^). CjC.A Wrff J\b.77?78- Ob 7. The Petitioner Pi led a Whin For Mu/ic Pro Tun c Order (C,R. 6H-{4) mXL 301M .On July 93.90W Pcfff/owrs Motion u>a5 Graced £hd a Mine Pro (wc Order u&s eAtTed. u2-R. 70 To the Petitioner the order u&s vagu-e end omh- IguOuS frJ ujas Yio4 aexo/vnpcnied bu an emended/ aofCexJ-ed judgment Lohicb feP)ec4s tUt the DeacJL 3, \lfeipon FlnclinQ was feMoVed sOnd or CoCfeded TO <5wt "A MotorVekicfe instead 4he jud^ent s4a4es "A fcrear^ Csee." C.Rd3-Wv35-37) ond on amended /corrtded judfymeni tuhich fcfleck- all of 4b^L.pihiib/iefc haoF \\MC Cred.ds *.4huS 4he, petitioner Pled a Yiohct £>F app eal Csee: Gill f^l ~0U Se^ also CR. 130-/31); 8. ; On 1030-90M 5tti Court OP/Ipp^fs 3Utire A/a &Touja "issues/ On order gIo&tiVkj the, appeal tor Zodcjfi stating cmn(j other things that 4he. K)unc pro tu/ic Order ujos issued oui4k a CoMplere absence, or clue. proCes,S duith V)o Counsel ^no \)W\o§ ~ro Coun reporter.

On 11-1H-90IM 4heTf\ol Cour\ issued cnoiher nunc pro ordtr recinding her previous order ^ako uj/4hou7 notiee koW process, CounSeJ ^ecfincj kOc a Court- reporter cs\d Service oP Said order. Ihe 9Ad\hner had no kno^- ledge of the order unid 4b<L /IfpelhPe Courf Ckrk ^orujarderl 4he Trial Court Clerk Record in fehruCfu 90i5 end orderej 4he Petdibner 4o 4de an o^enrkd ^ppJIores brfeP UHn 4be appropriate ci4«Pions Pro™ -Bne Clerts i?e£ord. °f. On 05-)8"3015 Pe4ituWs appeal uoas dismissed For uuant of junsdic4ion dui 4o 4he, Ii4le oP his KbPee Of Appeal CCRMfbDllaJ 4he drcW to 4hejW^4 of rim/fctibn as vo\d^ in; addition 4o seek^ the. relief 5ouab4 V) the Petitioners Nunc Pro Tunc Motion (C&MiL) Appeal No/os-N-o\%i-ae, The PetiPonefs UAice Of Appeal From The CLdyh^rt Of Convfc4ibn PurSuGnt "Jo Rule 59% TMjCP" is SuffaenF 4o ConPer juris diet/on) upon 4he appeals Couri^ tuVierein 4hc 3uL 7£30V\ NuncPro lunc Order is shpuP o4ed 4o fePJeot if/Yieliness oP4henoT;r^ . and 4k^ Pt/e is \Yrelewnt 4o 4he eo/iteot oP a vwiion or none?..

U Issuer For Rp\/)/Uo 1- Is The. Pefltibner entitled 4o the, review erf flnt phin errors aleJ bu 3uspce. Ado. Bcaujm in 4he Appeals, Courts order dahd October 30.30H.cnd review of 4bose_ Same plain errors u/4h fespecd 4o 4ke Trial Cour4s Wo/emL>f H/30W KJunc Pro Tunc Ord?r {Jnich uuaS also en4ered without due. proress ^nor\cjl, Viearing..Counsel . or a Cow4 reporter ?

3. Is The. PePtfoner entitled to h&ve his julgvuvd emended cad or Correeted to spe^h 4be 4ru4h ubich Is 4h^7 4W De&dLj Weapon ujas a "Morar VeHiok" 0\d not a"Firearm f 3. Is The Petitioner enPtled 4o all oP his pCt-5enh\Ce hcrl \\m<L Credits pursuit to Ar4ide. H2.03 S&<cnd under on ^4oreennen4 of 4he plec a^emeni ?

H. Assuming 4lna4 a Void judgwe/it &m be raised in any pro ceeds a xis an appear \rom o nunc pro iunc order a pWe 4o ctaJlence. uJud^nMt oP" convichon c& Void f s, 5, Is \\)t \riat Courts Ajy 9Q-.90H W hloVavh>r KVOM Wu/ic Pro Tunc Orders void as the orders L^ere ordered uilhout notice Jneanra vCounsel #\d c/ue. process vOnd uiith- Oa4 Qx^sel f C. Is 4Vie Petrfibn€rs Oud^nenl oP Conv?ct/on a wisc&rri^e dP justice due to 4he. lack cda \acdua\ basis for 4V\e. pleo! Fed R. Ccm.9. \\ 06)6). cvJorthe lock of Suffi cient Competent evidenre 4o Subs-fenPic.te. 4he exis4ence of £udn ess«n4iul element of 4hc offense. A4rc/<?' 145CCfi \n )\ab4 of tW Victf/riS Ci4a4/bn of the undispn4ed-fac/s ? "?. Is 4he Petitioners ^Sud^meni OP GnVict;on Void due to the Trial Courts lack oP junsdicPion because of a fundamQ/uoUu de4kcA\ve \nd\cdrr\e^4 : HL SUe mnt Of The Ccfrp The Petition er Is e/vritW to Du<l Process &EoufihrV 4^c4ion oP 4he.lo.uJ ^£nd erdfrued 4o a \ac\uaWu Valid tnrjfc4men4 bosed ufhn a Se4 of -Facfs ftlaued ioihe police Ond proS£Cu4or buj the Vibn/n.The PePf/oner is entitled 4o \\a\lt KiS jud^/yient Speak 4he 4rcd/i purSuan4 p6 4bc pleo agreement" m4ered 4huS enfdlfnq nlmAd a Valid Oeodlu W&iQon f\nd\na bcSedon Pads end a Juc^Anen4 ujhicfi fePlects all of his prc-Senfenr^ credit fe.

I. The PePfhoneirs iin^fr4vwu Is fundonoenPc)^ drferdiVt as 1+does no4 /v^ei 4hc ConSp«4uti5ina / f«taiSi>S of a cbar&mg lns4ruoo^T 4hus fend^nn^ 4he_ ftftr- fo/iefS 3udfimeAT Of Convirtfon VAid . NiX v S4de fc5 Suj, Sd ttg-W ; Garcia v, Oca I 5% S,Uj.9d 53^527 (Tfcx- Cff/w.App, 1980^ "14 [5 cuell setl/ed 4k4 aValid indicJ- menPdts essenPr^) p6 Pn^ dis4nc7 Courts ju nsalic4/a<o in a criminal CaSe . The Petitioners indict/nen/ Contawl 5-lututory Violations pursuit 4o Artic/eS 3)08.2'-0^ ond 9145 utoefein 4he i(oa/icrmen4 fa]k 4o Qlkcclhc s4olen property .. the Dinner oP 4he Siolen property, end AW ele™en4 of feeklessness .

3. The IndicWi4 CCP. 8) alleges fhJ 4he PetiWr Committed a thePf oP en unspecrne^ item of propen^ Ond an QSSGulf on G\IWt (Wsacfa ujit/) a Deadly ^ Weapon, thus the. Petitioner ujas depfwled of norici oP ujbat he "is accused of stealing ,ond 4he Pefmoner Is not jproiected Prom bem^ SubjectJ to Gchtf/^e erf 4bef4 for 4he uki alkatd propertu 4huS 4he, IndAmeAl does not Satisfy the 54k Amen^yients OooSilmriond feQuiYe/wvK 4W4 y\o4ice wms4 Come from fni fact of ~h(L inuVc4flnen7 ana 4hd Said no4ice must pfeW qqainsf double jeopardy . 54,/»e v. IPS 3LI L/5. d&Cl%0)[Ex Parte Bain &l U5 I 0887KU.Sv. k , S00 F3d 6570* dr. 9000-^ ;VaU<V v. Xooteck 205 FAT4a4 P£/A 6c 90b5) US.v. M 9W F3d \Dlo,\0%(D£Cc.9ooh 3, Ey Porte Spoulding (£7 S,uj«9d a745 "Avoid jud^- med Is a nulldLj 4ro/y, 4he b^iiWng , andh QitmrJ^d by /lone oP 4he. rinSeGuerreS oPc Valid Judcjfapjd a±i is £y4iTied to no fespec4 ujkdsoei/er because )r does noi offec4 Jmpoir ^or cfade legal rights/ 4, Tht Appeals Courts d(Sm\S5cl Par UJOnt ofjufssdiction uuas unConsPftu4ibnal because a ^uilfu p)e<*. does no/ ujaivc jurisdictional errors Henna v. MX 423 (/S. &/, ^ Cl975J "Pactum I QuiIf must bt Validly e^kblhhcrJ Id a\ t£ n.9 .U.S. v. Thompson 7tf3 F3d feoM, £0£ P///A C>^;/) "auilL pies did nz?7 u^lVe. Qraums/A- tUcA indicT^i/fr faded \o chrae Gpf#iseld US v. Del^ado -Circle, 374 F3d 1337^ (Ml (DC Dr.900^0 5, There \s no tactual basu for the Petitioners p\ea 4o Qqarava4ed robbe/u ujith a oP^dL w^pan/wkeo+kc Pet- \ \ iii vhbner enicf-ed n\s pl£a oa 07-07-3003/•> h*_ did i- I no/_L Knouo /

4\no4 he Pails 4o know uutad acts Constdufe iht Chtyt ond uhb) 4he GourP accepted h\s pleo and drftrred his guilt kc Pel4 4hs4 k u&S gdilPu of 4he cUarat.

When 4Vie Vfctno Gllher4 (LeSads the Victim leAmtdJhi $e4i4foV)er drd ndr kno^ 4kcd the 4eA\/nony uj&s -kVordolt Ond eyculpatofu because he. didh' und^^fond ~tnc (\ck fcb OjnstituTe tkc offfaSc and he.jusP doj^cud on 8, 4he mercy he Sought from 4hc Court uKoh \s ujby he ctaoSe. to Go open dia *Kb One including the, djurf AW prosecutors or Counsel told vvil 4he ek/nirns of 4hc off^ise (sec: US. v< AhermlL 83 Fid 17,19 USf Cic mO. k. There is no fac4ual boStS for 4he Petitioners P/eo. or i\nt allcaoPionS .l/i 4he.lndiYjPwerif 4huS 4lvC Petitioners ConvicP fon \s a miscarriage ofjus4ir^ , 07-24-£00°\ 4bc vfcti/n 4es4\P)ed 4ha4 when he. cmt OuP of 4ke house: ms Cur uocls already cpne^end 4hed he bed a con^rscd/oV} unth Wis Coworker7fr\er\d aJ hou/ upo^ discovering 4ke VeVlicI? had been s4ole^> 4Wu Set OuP in ancAher Vehidf 4o Search for vloca4e ^ond at/#hp4ed 4o recover the. vehicle >.Ond \\d\a) Mr, Suesadc found 4he, Pthribner poirked a4 a ^as Spfhon and houj Mr Suesgas ran up 4o 4be veKck end in mated Contact uji4k 4/ml refit- \ov\er uuho aias SiilinCj parked a4 idle at tkc aaS s4&4 /on and houu he ujas hurt vohzn 4k e reimonfr 5ped Ouoay in 4he, Vehkle Csee'* KR Vol 3 R6vbn,5dC) Counsel Garu uhell asked Hr.OjeSada 7 Ouest/onS P''So. You drdnt See your Ccr ujhen it uj^s 4sked?* HrQueSadc onSujered"NoTse^;KRVol3 Pll Ln,b-8^> .end *% you \\adn\ Pollouaed 4he person ujW stole uour Car to tne aas statin „V) other uWs yow ujerenf in hot p^suAf McQu^da c*sw<rd "No "(See; UK .Vol 3 P.) I b/PB") 9, 7, The .State did not dispuPe the Vicfi/ns Version of ev&fk ond the Pc4ifibner did no+rontest thos-ed^eds houJWer 4he Court did nor Consider the. Victi/vrt levrfmonu luben l4 ujaS Consti/uT/ancl/y Cnd sraTuTordu Cmu\Cea 4o Viear IVldenCtAb Suhsinfrare the plea pursuant to /Irficle 115 CC.P tkus dl^feaardfnQ fkc lack of c> PacduJ baSi^ for the. plfa . It&d/^ v. US. 31d US 467 Pl%9)l US. v. Gkrt I2fl F3d HUCfth G>, /998\ U5 v. Grt^r ||7 F3d 362^4 (5tA G>. ITO US v M*ao MM F3d f9£8 x1371-73 (n G>. tatf) IUS * GJ b*4» C70 F3d 183^3 C3c/ G>. Sbi^) LL/5. v. Gdb/J^g 869 F5d ao9 C%ft Cir Ml US. v. Mor^ 453 f3d H01JI19 (lo^ Cir. QootD ^US v. Hei d t51 fid 850 <855-54 (Bih Cir doff) 8. U.S.V.Crob^t \Vt fid H% Cuth G>. W%) *C^d^f u/bo claimed mpost ConVicrion proceeding fhaT he uj£S hsfij incarcerated for CorAurd fWA did mi Via Lie svarutc probibdln^ uSe or Carmna firearm dunnq end In rebnon \o (dua fraff\ck\s)Cj offense.,.. rcGtuifinq proofdhrf defendant acfually wwowijed firearm dunna pradiraft dcuq OfW\SJL \o "SuWOrf Conviction Under 'use!' pfonCj of sJcrLcte ^wvxdc SubswiTicI snowing of denial or WiS ritfbt fa dutL proCeSS> Undlr 5f/> AfoonoltopnT USCA.1' "We Con elude dn f&cf\4U4 the clal/vi fJk SGU&relu u/dhV) 4W ordoa of the. f\ff\\ .hmordwem /Tr\detd the uueli serried \0.