NO. IN THE 

### CO URT O F CRIM INAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
EX PARTE TERRANCE HENRY

Appellant
v. T HE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

### APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REV IEW No. 05-14-00197-CR COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT DALLAS, TEXAS On appeal f

r o m Cause Num

ber F-09-0959736-W in the 363 R

D Crim inal District Court o f Dallas County , Texas Honorable Tracy

Holm es, Judge Presiding JOHN TATUM 990 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75081 (972) 705-9200 BAR NO. 19672500 jtatum law@ gm ail.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i -i v STATEM ENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUM ENT.
. . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEM ENT OF CASE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -2 STATEM ENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY..
. . . . . . . . . 2 STATEM ENT OF FACTS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s a uto m a ti c new puni s hm ent o f l i fe w i th pa ro l e o n rem a nd di d no t v i o l a te the Ei g hth Am endm ent to the Uni ted Sta tes Co ns ti tuti on ba sed o n deci s i o ns o f thi s Ho no ra bl e Co urt i n Turner v. St a t e , 4 4 3 S.W .3 d 1 2 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 1 4 ) a nd Lewi s v. St a t e , 4 2 8 S.W . 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 14 ). 2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s application of the 2013 am endm ent to section 12.31 P.C. w hen resentencing Henry w as not an unconstitutional ex post facto application fo the am e nded law . 3. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Henry ’s punishm ent on rem and does not violate Henry ’s right to due process. 4. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Henry ’s punishm ent on rem and pursuant to the 2013 am e ndm ent to section 12.31 P.C. did not constitute unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder.” REASONS FOR REVIEW
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 DISCUSSION .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 CONCLUSION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

iCERTIFICATE OF W ORD COUNT.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 APPENDIX A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

i iINDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES

FEDERAL CASES: Gr a ha m v. Fl

or id a 5 6 0 U.S. (2 0 1 0 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 M il ler v. Al a b am a 1 3 2 S.Ct . 2 4 5 5 (2 0 1 2 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -6 U.S. v. Ob r ien 3 9 1 U.S. 3 6 7 , 8 8 S.Ct . 1 0 7 3, 2 0 L.Ed . 2 d . 6 7 2 (1 9 68 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U.S. v. Pa t

zer 1 5 F3 d9 4 4 (1 0 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U.S. v. St a ten 4 6 6 F.3 d7 0 8 (9 th Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U.S. v. W a de 4 3 5 F.3 d8 2 9 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 STATE CASES: Lewi s v. St a t e 4 2 8 S.W . 3 d8 6 0, 8 63 (Tex
. Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 1 4).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Lo p ez v. St a t e 9 2 8 S.W .2 d5 2 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 St a t e v. Ha z za r d 1 4 6 Id ah o 3 7 , 1 9 0 P3 d1 9 3 (Ct . Ap p . 2 00 8 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 St a t e v. J o nes 1 9 2 W i s 2 d7 8 , 5 3 2 N.W .2 d7 9 (1 9 9 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 St a t e v. M a nus s ier 1 2 9 W as h 2 d6 5 2 , 9 2 1 P2 d4 7 3 (1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 iiiTurner v. St a t e 4 4 3 S.W .3 d1 2 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 1 4 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -4 STATUTES, RULES: 8 t h am en d m en tt o th e Un i t edSt at es Co ns t i tu ti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 5 Sec. 1 2
. 3 1 P.C. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 5 S ec. 1 9 .0 1 P.C. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Art i cl e I § 1 0 , o f th e Un i t edSt at es Co n s t i tu t i o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Art i cl e On e, Sect i o n Si x t een o f t h e Tex as Co n st itu t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Art i cl e On e Sect i on Ni n e o f t h e U.S. Co ns t i tu t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

i vNo . 0 5 -1 4 -0 0 1 9 7 -CR TO THE COURT OF CRI MI NAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TERRANCE HENRY, Appel l a nt
v . THE STATE OF TEXAS Appel l ee
* * * ** A PPELLANT’S PETI TI ON FOR DI SCRETI ONARY REVI EW

* * * ** TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS:

Co m es n o w th e Ap p el l an t/ Pet i t i o n er an dres p ect fu l l y u rg e t h e Co u rt t o g ran td i scret i on ary

rev iew o f t h e ab ov e n am ed cau s e. STATEMENT REGARDI NG ORAL ARGUMENT Ap p el lan t/ Pet i t io ner d o es n o treq u es to ral arg u m en tatth i s t i m e; h o wev er, i f d i s cret io naryrev i ew i s g ran t edAp p el lan t/ Pet i t i o n er req u es t s o ral arg u m en to n an y

i s su e g ran t ed rev i ew.

STATEMENT OF CASE OnM arch 1 , 2 01 1 , a tri al was h el di nCau s e No . F0 9 -5 97 3 6 -Wb efo re th e Ho n o rab le Tracy F. Ho lm es , J u d g e p res i d i ng o f t h e 3 6 3 rd J u d i ci al Di st ri ct Co u rto f Dal l as Co u n ty , Tex as , an da jury . Th e Defen d an t , Terran ce Hen ry , en t ereda p l ea o f n o t g u i l ty t o th e o ffen s e o f cap i t al m u rd er as ch arg edi nth e 1i n d i ct m en t . (RR: Vo l .4 p . 5 ) Th e ju ry fo u ndth e Defen d an t , wh o was s ev en t een y ears o l d atth e t i m e o f o ffen se, g ui l ty o f cap it al m

u rd er. (RR: Vo l . 7 p . 1 0 2 ) Th e jury s en ten cedth e Defen d an tt o co n fi n em en tfo r l i fe i n th e In st i tu t i o n al Di v i s i o n
o f Tex as Dep art m en to f Cri m i n al J u s t i ce wi th o u t p aro l e as req u i redb y l aw. (RR: Vo l
. 7 p . 1 0 4 ) Wh i l e Hen ry ’ s ap p eal was p en d i n g the Un i t ed St at es Sup rem e Co u rth el dth atth e Ei g h th Am en d m en tt o th e Un it edSt at es Co n st i tu t i o nfo rb i d s a
s en t en ci n g s ch em e fo r ju v en il e o ffen d ers i nwh i ch l ife wi th ou tp aro le i s
m an d at o ry

rat her t h an b as edo n an i n d i v i du al i zeds en t en ci n g as s es s m en t . Hen ry ’ s fi rs tap p eal , 0 5 -1 1 -0 06 7 6 -CR was rev ers edan drem an d edfo r a n ew p u n i s h m en t h eari n g . Onrem an d, the t ri al co u rtas s es s edHen ry ’ s p u n is h m en t ati m p ri s o n m en t fo r l i fe, wi th the p o s s i b i l i ty o f p aro l e. Th e s eco n dap p eal , 0 5 -1 4-0 0 1 9 7-CR, was affi rm ed
. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STORY

Th e Co u rto f Ap p eal s affi rm edth e ap peal i nan o p in i o n d el i v eredo n J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 a co p y

o f wh i ch i s at t ach edh eret o as Ad d en du m A. Ap p el l an t/ Pet i t i on er n o wfi l es h i s Pet i t io nfo r Di scret i o n ary Rev i ew.

SUMMARY OF THE S T A T EMENT OF FACTS Ap p el l an t/ Pet i t i on er was accu s ed o f th e m u rd er o f t wo m en , Bran d o n Gi l s trap an d Byro n Cart er, du ri n g th e co m m is s i o n o f a ro b b ery .
2GROUNDS FOR REVI EW RESTATED

1 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s a uto m a ti c new puni s hm ent o f l i fe w i th pa ro l e o n rem a nd di d no t v i o l a te the Ei g hth Am endm ent to the Uni ted Sta tes Co ns ti tuti on ba sed o n deci s i o ns o f thi s Ho no ra bl e Co urt i n Turner v. St a t e , 4 4 3 S.W .3 d 1 2 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 1 4 ) a nd Lewi s v. St a t e , 4 2 8 S.W . 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 14 ). 2 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t the tri a l co urt’s a ppl ica ti o n o f the 2 0 1 3 a m endm ent to s ecti o n 1 2 .3 1 P.C. w hen res entenci ng Henry w a s no t a n unco ns ti tuti ona l ex po s t fa cto a ppl i ca ti o n fo the a m ended l a w . 3 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s puni s hm ent o n rem a nd do es no t v io l a te Henry ’s ri g ht to due pro ces s. 4 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s puni s hm ent o n rem a nd purs ua nt to the 2 0 13 a m endm ent to s ecti o n 1 2 .3 1 P.C. di d no t co ns ti tute unco ns ti tuti o na l “ Bi ll o f Atta i nder.”

REASONS FOR REVI EW (ARGUMENT) Pet i t i o ner s ub m i t s th atth e Co u rto f Ap p eal s h as s o far d ep art edfro m th e accep t ed an du s u al co urs e o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s , o r s o far s an ct i o neds u ch a d ep artu re b y

a l ower co u rt , as t o cal l fo r an ex erci s e o f t h e Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s’ p o wer o f s up erv is i on . Th i s Co u rts h ou l drev i ew t hes e i s su es b ecau s e t h e Co u rto f Ap p eal s h as i s s u edan o p in i o nco ncern i n g the co n s t itu t i on al i ty o f t h e ret ro act i v e ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e l aw p ro v i d in g fo r a l i fe s en t en ce wi th th e p o s s i b i l i ty
o f p aro l e t o a 1 7 y ear o l dco n v i ct edo f cap i t al m u rd er wh i l e h is cas e was p en d i n g ap p eal i n res p o n s e t o th e cas e o f Mi l l er v. Ala b ama , 1 3 2 S.Ct . 2 4 5 5 (2 0 1 2 ).

3Ap p el l an tm ov es th i s Co u rtt o reex am in e i t s h o l d i n g s i n thes e t wo

cas es ( Tu rn er

v. Sta t e, s up ra an d Lewis v. Sta t e , s up ra) as th ey ap p l y t o t h e cas e at b ar i n l i gh t o f t h e ad di t i o n al i s su es rai s edi nth is cas e co ncern i n g Hen ry ’ s ch al l en g es ; (1 ) t h atth e l aw u sedt o as s es s h i s n ew p un i s hm en twas ap p li edex p o s t fact ; (2 ) t h atth e n ew l aw rel at in g t o th e as s es sm en to f h i s n ew p u n i sh m en tv i o l at es h i s ri g htt o du e p ro ces s i n i t s ret ro act iv e effect ; an d (3 ) t h atl aw rel at i ng t o th e
as s es s m en to f h i s n ew p u n i sh m en tco ns t i tu t es a ‘ Bi l l o f At t ai nd er.’ 1 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s a uto m a ti c new puni s hm ent o f l i fe w i th pa ro l e o n rem a nd di d no t v i o l a te the Ei g hth Am endm ent to the Uni ted Sta tes Co ns ti tuti on ba sed o n deci s i o ns o f thi s Ho no ra bl e Co urt i n Turner v. St a t e , 4 4 3 S.W .3 d 1 2 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 1 4 ) a nd Lewi s v. St a t e , 4 2 8 S.W . 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 14 ).

ARGUM ENT Th e Co u rto f Ap p eal s h el d t hatth i s Ho no rab l e Co u rt h as d et erm i n ed th atHen ry

was n o ten t i t l ed t o an i n d i v i du al i zeds en t en ci n g h eari n g p u rs u an tt o th e

‘ T u rn er’ cas e. Ap p el l an t arg u es ex cerp t s fro m th e Mi l l er

d eci s i o ni ns up p orto f h i s p o s i t i o n th aty ou th fu l o ffen d ers l i k e h i m s el f s h o u l dn o tb e s ub jectt o
m an d at o ry

s en t en ci n g l eg i s l at io n o f an y n atu re. Th is i s p res en t edi nan at t em p tt o p ers u ad e reco n s i d erat i o n o f t h is Co u rt ’ s h o l d i ng i n ‘ Tu rn er’ th atth e Mi l l er cas e d o es no tp rev en tm an d at o ry l i fe s en t en ces wi th p aro l e fo r 1 7 y ear o l d o ffen d ers

4wh o are co n v i ct edo f Cap i t al M u rd er i nTex as an dt o p res erv e t h e i s s u e fo r

p o s s i b l e fu rt h er rev iew i n Fed eral Co u rti f req ui red i n t h e cas e atb ar.

Ap p el l an targ u es fro m Mi l l er th atch i l dren are co n s ti tu t i o n al l y d i fferen t fro m

adu l t s fo r p u rp o s es o f s en t en ci n g , b ecau s e ju v en i l es h av e d i m i n i s h edcap aci ty

an d g reat er p ro sp ect s fo r refo rm . Itwas s t at ed thata ch i l d ’ s
m o ral cu l p ab il i ty

i s l es s en edan den han cedth at as th e y ears g o b y an d
n eu ro l o g i cal d ev el o p m en to ccu rs th e d efi ci en ci es wi l l b e refo rm ed . An o ffen d er’ s ag e as m ad e cl ear i n G r a h a m v. Fl o r i d a , 5 6 0 U.S. (2 0 1 0 ) i s rel ev an tt o the Ei g h th Am en d m en tan ds o “ cri m in al p ro cedu re l aws th at fai l t o t ak e d efen d an t ’ s y o u th fu l n es s i n t o acco un tatal l wo u l d b e fl awed .” 2 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t the tri a l co urt’s a ppl ica ti o n o f the 2 0 1 3 a m endm ent to s ecti o n 1 2 .3 1 P.C. w hen res entenci ng Henry w a s no t a n unco ns ti tuti ona l ex po s t fa cto a ppl i ca ti o n fo the a m ended l a w . ARGUM ENT Th ere was a d efi n edcri m e o f cap i t al m urd er wi tho u ta d efi n ed p u n i s h m en tap p l i cab le t o Ap p el l an tdu e t o h i s ag e o f 1 7 y ears atth e t i m e o f t h e
o ffen s e. Th e n ewl y

am en d eds t atu t e Sec.1 2.3 1 (a) t h ereb y s ev erel y i n creas edth e p u n i s h m en tt o l i fe. Ap p el l an tfu rt h er s ub m i t s th at h e s h o ul d h av e b een p ro s ecu ted p u rs u an t t o th e s t atu to ri l y d efi n edo ffen s e o f m

u rd er p u rs uan tt o s ec. 1 9
. 0 1 P.C. th atcarri eda co ns t i tut i o n al p u n i s h m en t ran ge o f 5 -9 9 y ears o r l ife co n fi n em en t
5an d up t o a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fi ne fo r a fi rs td eg ree fel o ny o ffen se. Th i s wo u l dg i v e t h e

s en t en cer, ju d ge o r ju ry

th e n eces s ary

d i s cret io nt o co ns i d er al l th e co n s i derat i o n s d i s cu s s edi n ‘ M

i l l er ’ as fact o rs i nas s es s i n g p u n i s h m en tfo r ‘ ch i ldren ’ o ffen d ers . Ad d i t i o n al l y , Ap p el l an tel ect edth ath e b e s en t en cedb y a jury an d n o t th e Co u rti n
s u ch a s itu at i on . Ap p el lan targ u es th ath e was wro ng l y an dwi th o u tdu e p ro ces s p ro s ecu tedfo r an o ffen s e (Cap i t al M u rd er) t h ath adn o co n s t i tu t i o n al p u n i s h m en t rat h er t h anth e co ns t itu t i o n al o ffen s e o f m u rd er. 3 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s puni s hm ent o n rem a nd do es no t v io l a te Henry ’s ri g ht to due pro ces s. ARGUM ENT Al th ou g h the s t at e an dfed eral ex p o s tfact o cl au s es are l i m i tat i o n s o n l eg i s lat i v e act i o n , th e ju d i ci al b ran ch i s l im it ed b y th e s am e p ri n ci p l e p u rs u an tt o th e s t at e an dfed eral du e p ro ces s cl au s es ; an ex p o s tfact o d o ct ri n e p ro h i b i t i n g th e ret ro act i v e ap p l i cat i o n o f l aws d o es ap p l y t o th e ju d i ci al co ns tru ct i o no f l aws i n cl u d i n g b o th u n fo res een co n s tru ct i o n s as wel l as cl ari fi cat i o n s o f ex i s ti n g l aws . Lo p ezv. Sta te , 9 2 8 S.W .2 d5 28 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6); St a t e v. Jo n es . 1 92 W i s 2 d7 8 , 5 3 2 N.W
. 2 d7 9 (1 9 9 5). Th i s was m ad e cl ear b y th e Un i t edSt at es Sup rem e Co u rt , wh i ch h el dth at an u n fo res eeab l e ju di ci al en l arg em en to f a cri m i n al s t atu t e, ap p li edret ro act i v el y , o p erat es p reci s el y l i ke an ex p o stfact o l aw, s u ch as Art i cl e I § 1 0, o f t h e Un i t ed St at es Co n st i tu t i o nfo rb i d s , an dth ats i n ce a s t at e l eg i s l atu re i s 6b arred b y

th e Ex Po s t Fact o Cl au s e fro m p as s i n g s u ch a l aw, i tm

u s tfo l l o wth ata
s t at e ap p el l at e co u rti s b arred b y th e Du e Pro ces s Cl au s e fro m ach iev i n g p reci s el y th e s am e res ul tb y

ju d ici al co n s tru ct i o n . U.S . v. Sta t en , 4 6 6 F.3 d7 08 (9 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). Du e p ro ces s co n cern s d o req u i re t h atthe ap p l i cat i o no f ju d i ci al d eci s i o n s t o a p en di n g d efen d an t ’ s cas e co m p l i es wi th th e co n cep t s o f n o ti ce, fo res eeab i l i ty , an d i n part icu l ar t he ri g h t t o fai r warn i ng , U.S

. v. W a d e , 4 3 5 F.3 d 8 2 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). 4 . The Co urt o f Appea ls erred i n ho l di ng tha t Henry ’s puni s hm ent o n rem a nd purs ua nt to the 2 0 13 a m endm ent to s ecti o n 1 2 .3 1 P.C. di d no t co ns ti tute unco ns ti tuti o na l “ Bi ll o f Atta i nder.” ARGUM ENT Two el em en t s o f wh at co n s t i tu t es a b i l l o f at t ai nd er p ro h i b i t edb y th e
s t at e an dfed eral co n st i tut i o n s are t h e p res en ce o f p u n i s h m en twh i ch as a p art i cu l ar l aw, p ro v i s i o n o r act i o n ch al l en g edo na b i l l o f at t ai nd er g ro u n d s i s i n fl i ct edb y an
au th o ri ty o th er t h an a ju di ci al au th o ri ty an dth e l acko f a ju d i ci al tri al
. Stat e v. Ma n u s si er , 1 2 9 W as h 2 d6 5 2 , 9 2 1 P2 d 4 7 3 (1 9 9 6 ), U.S . v. Pa t z er , 1 5 F3 d9 4 4 (1 0 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 3 ) Sta te v. Ha z z a rd , 1 46 Id ah o 3 7 , 1 9 0 P3 d 1 9 3 (Ct . Ap p . 2 00 8 ) U.S

. v. Ob r i en , 3 9 1 U.S. 3 6 7 , 8 8 S.Ct . 1 0 7 3 , 2 0 L.Ed . 2 d . 6 72 (1 9 68 ).

A b i l l o f at t ai n d er i s a l eg i s lat i ve act th at ap pl i es ei th er t o n am ed i n d i v i du al s o r t o eas il y

i d en t i fi ab l e m em

b er o f a g ro up i ns u ch a way as t o i n fl i ct
7p u n i s h m en to n th em wi th o u t a ju d ici al tri al as i nth e cas e atb ar i nthatAp p el l an t

i s a m em b er o f ani d en t i fi ab l e cl as s o f p ers o n s u n d er 1 8 y ears o f ag e t h ath av e b een tri edan dco n vi ct edo f t h e adu l t o ffen s e o f cap i t al m u rd er i nwh i ch the
m an d at o ry

an dau t o m at i c p u n i sh m en to f l ife wi th ou tp aro le i s u n co n s t i tu t i o n al
. Th e rem ed y o f l i fe wi th p aro l e as a m an d at o ry an d au t o m at i c p u ni s h m en tt o b e ap p li edt o Ap pel l an tret ro s p ect i v el y i s b y l eg i s l atu re en act m en tan dn o tb y ju d i ci al tri al b y th e s en t en cer el ect edb y

Ap p el l an t , th e ju ry . Th e res ul t in g ap p l i cat i o no f a
m an d at o ry

s en t en ce o f l i fe as s es s edi nth i s cas e; i s therefo re an u n co n s t i tu t i o n al b i l l o f at t ai n d er. CONCLUSION

In co n cl u s i o n , Ap p el l an targ u es th ati n Hen ry ’ s cas e o n ce t h e
s t atu to ry m an dat o ry

l i fe wi th o u tp aro l e s en t en ce was h el d u n co n s ti tu t io n al , th ere
was n o s t atu t o ry

s en t en ci ng s ch em e i n effect atth e t i m e. As a rem ed y the l eg i s latu re p as s eda s en t en ci n g s ch em e o f l i fe wi th p aro l e wi th a s av i n g s cl au s e
m ak i n g t he p u ni s hm en tap p l y retro act i v el y was an ex p o s t fact o ap p l i cat i on o f a
n ew p u n is h m en t. Ap p el l an t al s o arg u es th atth is at t em p tedrem ed y fo r an
u n co ns t itu t i o n al s en t en ci n g s ch em e as ap p l i edt o Hen ry v io l at edh is ri g htt o du e p ro ces s an do r was effect i v el y a ‘ Bi ll o f At t ai n d er’ as ap p l i edt o Hen ry . An
u n fo res eeab l e ju d i ci al en l arg em en t cri m i nal s t atut e, ap p li ed ret ro act i v el y o p erat es
8l i ke an ex p o s t fact o l aw. Ap p el l an targ u es th at th e ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e ret ro act i ve

ap p li cat io n o f t h e n ew s en t en ci n g s ch em e i s a v i o l at i on o f du e p ro ces s p u rs u an tt o Art i cl e On e, Sect i o n Si x t een o f t h e Tex as Co n st itu t i o nan d Art i cl e On e Sect i o n Ni n e o f t h e U.S. Co n s t i tu t i on b y th e ret ro act i ve ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e n ew l aw i nthe Co u rto f Ap p eal s an dn o w i n th i s p et i t i o n t o b e g ran t ed fo r fu rt h er b ri efi n g o nth e i s su e. PRAYER

Fo r t h e reas o n s s t at ed , i ti s res p ect fu l l y s ub m i t t edth atth e Co u rto f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s s h ou l dg ran tth i s Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew an dth en
rev ers e t he ju d g m en t , an drem an dfo r a n ew t ri al
. Res p ect fu l ly

s ub m i t t edb y ,
/ s /J o h nTatum J o h nTatu m CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE I, J OHN TATUM , d o h ereb y cert i fy th ata t ru e an dco rrect co p y o f t he fo reg o i n g Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i on ary Rev iew fo r Pet i t i on er was d el i v ered t o Su s an Hawk , Cri m i n al Di s tri ctAt t o rn ey , Ap p el l at e Sect i o n , 1 1 th fl o o r, Fran kCro wl ey Cri m i n al Co u rt s Bu i l d i n g , Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 0 7 , o nth is 4 th d ay o f Au g u st , 2 0 1 5
.
/ s / J o hn Tatu m J OHN TATUM 9CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE OF W ORD COUNT PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE OF PROCEDURE 9 .4 I cert i fy th atth i s d o cu m en th as 1 ,8 0 2 wo rd s p u rs u an tt o th e d efi n i t i o n s o f l en g th an dco n t en ti n Ru l e 9 .4 . (C)(i )(2 )(D) A. Cas e Nam e: Terran ce Hen ry B. Th e Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s C. Th e Ty

p e o f Do cu m en t : Pet i t i o nfo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew D. Part y fo r wh o m

th e d o cu m en t i s b ei n g s ub m i tt ed : Ap p el l an t E. Th e W o rdPro ces s i ng So ft ware an dVers i o nUs ed t o Prep are t h e Bri ef: W o rdPerfect X7 Co p ies h av e b een s en t t o al l p art i es as s o ci at edwi th th i s cas e. / s /J o h n Tatu m

,Au g u s t4 t h 2 0 1 5 (Si g nature o f fi l in g p arty

an dd at e)

10CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE

I cert i fy th atth i s s ub m i t t ede-m ai l at t ach m en tt o fi l e Pet it i o nfo r Di s cret io n ary

Rev i ew co m

p l ies wi th th e fo l l o wi n g req u irem en t s o f th e Co u rt : 1 . Th e p et i t i o n i s s ub m i t t edb y e-m ai l at t ach m en t ; 2 . Th e e-m ai l at t ach m en ti s l ab el edwi th th e fo l l o wi n g i n fo rm at i o n : A. Cas e Nam e: Terran ce Hen ry B. Th e Ap pel l at e Cas e Nu m b er: NO. 05-14-00197-CR C. Th e Ty

p e o f Do cu m en t : Pet i t i o nfo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew D. Part y fo r wh o m

th e d o cu m en t i s b ei n g s ub m i tt ed : Ap p el l an t E. Th e W o rdPro ces s i ng So ft ware an dVers i o nUs ed t o Prep are t h e M o t i o n : W o rdPerfect X7 3 . Co p i es h av e b een s en tt o al l p art i es as s o ci at ed wi th thi s cas e. / s /J o h n Tatu m

,Au g u s t4 t h 2 0 1 5 (Si g nature o f fi l in g p arty

an dd at e) J o h n Tatu m (Pri n t edn am e) J o h n Tatu m , At t o rn ey

atLaw Em ai l edCo p y o f Pet i t i o n

11A PPENDIX A

12