'It ••• u. • 

HONORABLE CLERK 

ABEL ACOSTA 

TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT 

9601 SPUR 591 

AMARILLO, TEXAS 79107 

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITAL STATION 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

78711 

RE; FILING OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

Dear Honorable Clerk: 

RECEIVED~~ 

COURT OF CRIII/iiNAL APPEALS 

MAR 12 2015 

Please find enclosed my ''PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" for 

presentation to the Honorable Justices for consideration. 

There are no copy-services available in TDCJ-CID so I am unable 

to make any additional copies or serve the District Court (Respondent) with a copy of this Petition. If additional copies are required would you please make them. 

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

~~l:Ltt-~-· 3--8 -(~ 

Troy Eugene Huffmaster 

Pro Se Representation 
,. . .. . 

APP. NO. ______________ __ 

IN THE 

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 

************* 

IN RE TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER, 

PETITIONER/RELATOR. 

************* 

TROY EUGENE HUFFMASTER, 

TDCJ-CID#l537487, 

RELATOR, 

vs. 

NUECES COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE, 

JOSE LONGORIA, 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, 

RESPONDENT. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 214TH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT OF 

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

***************************************************************** 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

***************************************************************** 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT·OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, the petitioner, pro se, 

and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of 

Mandamus and order the Honorable Jose Longoria, in his official 

capacity as the District Judge of the 2l4th Judicial District of 

Nueces County, Texas, to either grant or deny Petitioner's "MOTION 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 
Page 2. 

I. 

JURISDICTION STATEMENT 

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked p~rsuant to Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure, Article 4.04, Sections·! and 2, or whatever 

applicable Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, statute or rule necessary to invoke· jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner/Relator, requests that this Court liberally construe his pleading in light of 

Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). 

II. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

1. On May 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals of the Thirteenth 

District of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, modified Petitioner's 

Judgment by stating the following: 

"The written judgment recites that the underlying offense, 

escape, is a second-degree felony. However, Huffmaster was indicted 

for third-degree felony escape, and the jury found him guilty of 

that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed 

to show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony 

escape from a secure correctional facility. We agree and therefore 

modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was convicted of thirddegree felony escape from a secure correctional facility." (See 

Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion at 19 attached as EXHIBIT A). 

(Attached to this Petition). 

2. On approximately November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed an 

application for writ of habeas corpus with the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas. 
... 

Page 3. 

3. On approximately December 3, 2013, Petitioner received a 

copy of the State's Answer. Included within the State's Answer was 

a copy of Petitioner's Judgment which illustrated the fact that 

the Co~rt of Appeals modification of Judgment was never complied 

with because the Judgment states: Offense for which Defendant Convicted: ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY. Degree of Offense: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. 

(See Judgment attached as EXHIBIT B). (Attached to this Petition). 

4. On approximately July of 2014, Petitioner filed a "MOTION 

TO ENFORCE COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT," with the 

Court of Appeals. 

-----5 . On approxi-m-ate 1 y Au~-e-f--.2-Q-1-4-,-t--R-e-C-0-l:H"-t--G f App~~------~ 

denied Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Court of Appeals Modification 

of Judgment. 

6. On approximately August of 2014, the Court of Appeals 

denied Petitioner's pro se Motion to Respond to th~ State's Answer. 

(The State partly stated that Petitioner's Motion was not properly 

in front'of the Court cited it was not a Writ of Mandamus). 

7. On approxiamtely September of 2014, the Court of Appeals 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, Petitioner's pro se Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

8. On approximately October 2nd, 2014, Petitioner filed with 

the 2l4th Judicial District Court a motion titled: "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATTON OF JUDGMENT." (Attached to 

this Petition). 

9. On approximately December 23rd, 2014, Petitioner filed with 

the 214th Judicial District Court a motion titled: "MOTION TO COMPEL 
... 

Page 4. 

COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS 

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 

10. On approximately January 28, 2015, Petitioner filed with 

the 214th Judicial Court a motion titled: PETITIONER'S SECQND MOTION 

TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF 

APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 

RELATOR 

III. 

ARGUMENTS: REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE 

A. MANDAMUS SHOULD ISSUE BECAUSE PETITIONER 

HAS NO OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY 

Troy Eugene Huffmaster, TDCJ-CID# 1537487 is an offender incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be locted at the William Clements Unit, 9601 

Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas 79107. 

Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other adequate 

remedy at law. The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not 

discretionary in nature. 

RESPONDENT 

Respondent, Jose Longoria, 1n his official capacity as the District 

Judge of Nueces County, Texas has a ministerial duty to rule on 

Motions properly filed 'and before the Court. Consideration of a 

motion properly filed before a trial court is ministerial. See 

White v Roper, 640 S.W.2d 586,594-596 (Tex.Crim.App.l982). 

B. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FAILED TO PERFORM HIS MINISTERIAL 

DUTY AND RULE ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT OF APPEALS MANDATE TO MODIFY PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT 
... 

Page 5. 

Fundamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity 

to be heard. Creel v District Attorney for Medina County, 818 S.W. 

2d 45, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.l99l). Thu~, a district court may be compelled via mandamus to consider and rule on a pending mo~ion presented to the court. See State ex rel. Curry v Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 

128 (Tex~Crim.App.l987); Cf., In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 

App.-Amarillo 2000). 

The Court of Appeals issued a mandate in this case to modify 

Petitioner's Judgment to show a conviction for a third-degree felony 

escape rather than a second-degree felony escape causing bodily 

injury. The trial court failed to c?mply with the Court of Appeals 

mandate. A "Mandate'' is the official notice of the action of the 

appellate court directed to the court below, advising it of the 

action of the appellate court and directing it to have its judgment 

duly recognized, obeyed, and executed." See Saudi v Brieven, 176 

S.W.3d 108 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2004). The mandate has 

also been described as "a command of the court, which the court is 

authorized to give and which must be obeyed.'' See Williams v State, 

899 S.W.2d 13, 15 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2004). 

To date, Petitioner/Relator has received no response from the 

Respondent regarding Petitioner's/Relator's above stated Motion's 

properly before the court. As is clear from Petitioner's/Relator's 

Motions; Petitioner/Relator has repeatedly put Respondent on notice 

that Petitioner/Relator seeks a ruling on the Motions properly 

filed with said court. 

In contrast to Petitioner's /Relator's efforts, Respondent has 
Page 6. 

wholly failed to perform its ministerial duty, is acting in bad 

faith, and has also failed to afford Petitioner/Relator the professional and common courtesy of a ruling on said Motion's despite 

Petitioner's/Relator's diligent efforts to have the court obey the 

Court of Appeals mandate which has caused Petitioner severe prejudice in the eyes of the unit classification department and the 

Amarillo Parole Board members. 

C. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE 

214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

The Respondent has failed in its ministerial duty to rule on 

Petitioner's/Relator's pending Motions which is a violation of due 

process. This Court has jurisdiction p~rsuant to Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure, Article 4.04, Sections 1 and 2. 

D. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD BE ISSUED 

A "writ of mandamus is an order directing a public official or 

public body to perform a duty exacted by law." United States v Denson, 603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.l979). It "is an extraordinary 

remedy for extraordinary causes." In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958, 961-62 (5th Cir.l980). To 

obtain the writ, the petitioner must show "that no other adequate 

means .exist to attain the requested relief and that his right to 

issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable." In re Willy, 831 

F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.l987). The issuance of the writ is within 

the Court's discretion. Densen, 603 F.2d at 1146. 

Petitioner/Relator, incorporates herein by reference, the legal 

arguments set forth in his MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS 

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT; MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING 
Page 7. 

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT; 

PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING 

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT; 

as if fully printed herein to support the issuance of a Writ of 

Mandamus. 

WHEREFORE, based on the above, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, urges 

this Honorable Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 

214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, to issue a 

ruling either granting or denying his Motion To Comply With Court 

of Appeals Modification Of Judgment. 

f":}-~ Respectfully submitted on this~day 

-Tii_;~ Hv~P A~- '-

Troy Eugene Huffmaster 

of(Y\~ 

INMATE DECLARATION 

I 2015. 

I, Troy Eugene Huffmaster, TDCJ-CID# 1537487, being presently 

incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, declare 

under the penalty of perjury that the facts and allegations in the 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct. 

·1(2o11-LSP~ 

Troy Eugene Huffmaster 

Petitioner/relator 
ATTACHED EXHIBITS 

#l. ORIGINAL MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION 

OF JUDGMENT. 

#2. MOTION TO COMPEL. 

#3. PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL. 
TROY HUFFMASTER 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT 

9601 SPUR 591 

AMARILLO, TEXAS 

79107 

PATSY PEREZ, HONORABLE CLERK 

DISTRICT COURT/COUNTY COURTS OF LAW 

P.O. BOX 2987 

901 LEOPARD STREET 

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

78403 

RE: FILING OF "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION 

OF JUDGMENT" CAUSE NO. 08-CR-2271-F 

Dear Honorable Clerk: 

Please find enclosed for presentation to the Honorable Judge 

Jose Longoria my, "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFI-· 

CATION OF JUDGMENT." 

J 

There are no ~opy services available in TDCJ-CID so I am unable 

to serve a copy of this Motion to the Nueces County District Attorney's D££ice if ~equired. Wovld yg~ pleft~e rn~ke any neeaed copies. 

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this very 

important matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

-&ofFJ~~---------~-------------~-------

Troy Huffmaster 

Pro Se representation 
EX PARTE 

TROY HUFFMASTER 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

***************************************************************** 

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 

***************************************************************** 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE LONGORIA: 

COMES NOW, Troy Huffmaster, Petitioner, pro se, and respectfully moves this Court to coffiply with the Court of Appeals Modif i cat i on o f J u d g men t . '!' h e Pet i t i one r 1-li ll s h o '\·! t h i s Honor a b 1 e 

Court as follows: 

1. On May 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals modified Petitioner's 

Judgment by stating the following: 

"The written judgment recites that the underlying offense, escape I is a secona aegree felony. However I HTITfma-.st:er was -i-rm-icted 

for third-degree felony escape, and the jury found him guilty of 

that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed 

to show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony 

- --·-·-------~------ ·----

modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was convicted of thirddegree felony escape from a secure correctional facility." (See 

Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion at 19 attached as EXHIBIT A). 
Page 2. 

2. On approximately November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court. 

3. On approximately December 3, 2013, Petitioner received a 

copy of the State's Answer. Included within the State's Answer 

was a copy of this Court's Judgment which illustrates that the 

~curt of Appeals modification was never complied with because the 

judgment states: Offense for which Defendant Convicted: ESCAPE, 

BODILY INJURY. Degree of Offense: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. (See Judgment 

attached as EXHIBIT B). 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

Petitioner's request is really very simple. The Court of Appeals 

modified this Petitioner's Judgment to reflect a third-degree 

felony escape, and, executed a Mandate to that effect. A "Mandate" 

is the official notice of the action of the appellate court, 

dir.ec.tin.g tbi.s CQ.ub"t, q.(lvising it of the a,c;tioi1 of the appellate 

court and directing it to have its judgment duly recognized, obeyed, 

and executed. See e.g., Saudi v Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108 (Tex.App.-

Houston [lst Dist] 2004). 

Therefore, when Petitioner received a copy of the Judgment in 

this case during the habeas corpus proceeaings, that Jli.Clgmenf 

should have reflected the Court of Appeals modification that Petitioner was convicted of a third-degree felony escape. Instead, 

Petitioner has been unduly prejudiced in the eyes of the Amarillo 

department, because they are all under the "incorrect" belief that 

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree felony escape causing 

bodily injury, and their files reflect the same. 
Page 3. 

This is easily demonstrated by the JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY 

JURY attached as EXHI-BIT 11 B. 11 This Judgment "should" state: Offense 

for which Defendant convicted: THIRD-DEGREE ESCAPE instead of what 

EXHIBIT 11 B" states; ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY. Under Degree of Offense 

it should state: THIRD-DEGREE FELONY instead of: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. 

Therefore, this Honorable Court has a ministerial duty to comply with the Court of Appeals Mandate ordering a modification of 

Petitioner's Judgment to reflect that Petitioner was convicted of 

\ 

a third-degree felony escape and not a second-degree felony escape 

causing bodily injury. 

Therefore, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court to send 

reformed copies of the JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY to the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutional Divisions 

and the Amarillo Parole Board reflecting that Petitioner was convicted of third-degree felony·escape and not second-degree felony 

escape causing bodily injury. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Honorable 

Court will take immediate action and reform the Judgment of Conviction to reflect that Petitioner was convicted of a third-degree 

felony escape rather than second-degree felony escape causing bodily 

injury and immediately send copies of the reformed Judgment to TDCJCID and the Amarillo Parole Board. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~-R~Y HJ~r~-· Troy Buffmaster 

Pro Se Representation 
Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F 

EX PARTE 

TROY HUFFMASTER 

TDCJ-CIDi 1537487 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

******************** 

ORDER 

******************** 

On this day was heard the foregoing, "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT,"and the same is hereby: 

GRANTED/DENIED 

The Court hereby orders the district clerk to send a copy of 

the reformed JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY to the following: 

Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCorrectional Institutions Division 

P.O. Box 99 

Huntsville, Texas 77342 

Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles 

8610 Shoal Creek Blvd. 

Austin, Texas 78757 

Troy Eugene Huffmaster 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

William Clements Uriit 

9601 Spur 591 

Amarillo, Texas 79107 

William P. Clements Unit 

Classification Department 

9601 Spur 591 

---Am a r iTlcs-;--T"""'e-::x'"""'a,..,s.,-79T07 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

SIGNED ON I 2014. --------------------------------

Honorable Jose Longoria 

Judge Presiding 
EXHIBIT A 

MANDATE 

TC1 THE 214th District Court OF Nueces COUI\ITY, GREETII'>JGS 

STATE'S 

EXHIBIT 

c_ 

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, or1 the 28th day of May, 2fJOSJ, 

the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between 

TROY HUFFMASTER, Appellant, 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

CAUSE NO. 13-08-00599-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 08-CR-2271-F) 

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: 

MINUTES 

Vol 20/page 188 

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, from a judgment 

signed October 14, 2008. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rose Vela. Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

THIS CAUSE vv·a.s s:..:!J:-nitted to the Cuuil or. ~.~~!' 27, 2008. on the record and briefs. 

These having been examined and fully considered, it is tQe opinior1 of the Co:.::-! th2!' 

there was some error in the judgment of the court below, and said judgment is hereby 

Tli10DIFIED AND, ,t.~,S-tl.il0uiriED .. J:.F:=-!P.M!::D EJgninst aopelianl, TROY HUFFM/\STE:R. 

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance. 

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the 

Thirteenth District, of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and 

executed. · 

WfTNESS, the Han. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, wtfnfnesE:fa-1-th-erenf------

affixed, at the City of Corpus Christi/Edinburg, Texas, this the 14th day of August, 2009. 
EXHIBIT A 

To preserve error in admitting evidence, a party must make a proper 

objection and get a ruling on that objection. In addition, a party must object 

each time the inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection. 

An error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence 

comes in elsewhere without objection. 

Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim: App. 2003) (footnotes omitted); see Leday 

v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (explaining that "[o)ur rule ... is that 

overruling an objection to evidence will not result in reversal when other such evidence was 

received without objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling,"); Willis v. State, 

785 S.W .2d 378, 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (noting that admission of inadmissible 

( 

evidence is rendered harmless if the same or similar evidence is introduced without 

· objection elsewhere during trial). 

Here, defense counsel did not obtain a running objection. Therefore, error, if any, 

in the prosecutor's opening argurneni was cureci !Jecause the same or sirniiar evidence 

came in elsewhere without objection. See Willis, 785 S.W.2d at 383. Issue three is 

overruled. 

Ill. Modification of Judgment 

An appellate court has the power to correct a trial court's written judgment if the 

appellate court has the necessary information to do so. Cobb v. State, 95 S.W.3d 664, 

668 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2-002, no pet.)-:-Tfiis power aoes notaepena upon a 

party's calling the error to the court's attention or raising the issue on appeal. See French 

v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (adopting reasoning of Asberry v. 

. . .. ____ .~State.,_8_t3_S.W_.2d_526,53_L(Iex._App_.=Da llas_19_9j_,_p_eJ._Le.f'..d)_(kQn cl u d i n_g_tbQLr;~_uth qrity_ ___ _____ _______ _ __ ___ ··-- - -·· - ----- ------- --- ------ --------~-- --·-------- -- -- --- - - - -------- -------- ------------------ ------------------- -------- ···-----~----·- ··---

to reform incorrect judgment "is not dependent upon a request by either party")). 

18 
EXHIBI'J' l\. 

The written judgment recites that the underlying offense, escape, is a secondd~gree felony. However, Huffmaster was indicted for third-degree felony escape, and the 

jury found him guilty of that offense. The State points out the judgment should be reformed . ---..... 

to. show the conviction was a conviction for third-degree felony escape from a secure 

. correctional facility. We agree and therefore modify the judgment to show Huffmaster was 

convicted of third-degree felony escape from a secure correctional facility. 

IV. Conclusion 

The judgment of the trial court is modified and, as modified, we affirm the judgment. 

Do not publish. 

T:::~~. R. ll.po p e7.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 28th day of May, 2009. 

19 

ROSE VELA 

Justice 
EXHIBIT B 

CASE No. 08 CR 2271 F 

JNCTI>EJ\"1' N (j ./TRl\': f1089GGOS lX 

THE STATE 0F TEXAS § lN THE ZJ4TH DISTRICT 

§ 

v. § COURT 

§ 

TROY HUFFM..I\STER § NUECES COUJ\TTY, TEXA..S 

§ 

.STATE ID ).,jO_: TXU3:::782 i.l § 

JUDGMENT OF CONVJCTION BY JURY 

,JudgE: Presiding: HuN. JOSE LONGORIA 

P.ttorney for State: ANGELICA HERNANDEZ 

Date Judgment 

Entered: 

Attorney for 

Defendant: 

10/7/2008 

ROBERT FL \~N 

Offen.&e for which Defendant Convicted: ----~----=-----=------------------

ESCAPE, BODILY INJURY 

Charging Instrument: 

INDICTMBNT 

Date of Offense: 

517/2008 

Degree of Offense: 

2ND DEGREE FEL01~ 

·verdict of Jurv: 

GUILTY 

Paragraph: 

Findings on 1"' Enhancement 

?.:::::-zg-:-a.ph: 

TRUE 

'J'RTJE 

Statute for Offense: 

38.06 Penal Code 

Plea to Offense: 

NOT GUILTY 

Finding~ on Deadly Weapon: 

N/A 

Plea to znd Enhancemenifrlabitual 

Paragraph: 

Findings on zed 

Enbancement!Habitual Paragraph: 

10/7/2008 1077/2008 

TRU~ 

TRUE 

Punishment and Place 

of Confinement: TWENTY-FIVE (25) i'Eiill.S INSTITUTIONAL DIVISI9N, TDCJ 

THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 

0 SENTENCE oF coNFih"EMEh"T susPENDED, DEFENDANT PLACED or-; coMMUNITY suPERVISJOr-; FOR N/A. 

Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Pavabie to: 

. s;~ko.to $ -l? - 0 VICTIM (see beiow) 0 AGENCY/AGE!'."T (see below) 

Se:1: Orrender Registration f~equirements do noi a.ppiy to th.: DefenC..u.nt. TEX. CODE Cilllvi. PROC::. chapter 52. 

The age of the vic;;im at the time of the offense was N/A. 

If Defendan: i~ to s!?rve sentence in TDCJ enter incarceratiOn oeriods in cnronolo ical orcier. 

rr· 

L J.liJB 

Frorn'l(.Jogto 10/1/og From to From to 

From t<• From to From to Creci.Ited.: 

lfDef!mdan: i!c' t.c• serve sentence in counw jail or is given credit toward fme and co<;n·. enter dav~ credited below. 

DAYS NOTES: 

______ .o\ILJl~r:tine!!.Li!'for~l!_~ip_n, name• nncl HB•e•oment6 indicated above nre incorporated into the language of tb• judgment· below O)' reference .. 

-- ---- ---Th~-;;--~~-lu:;;-;;-wa5-calfecnor trial in N u ecesCouzn:y:-Texas~-TbrS wt'e-a ppeared-by ·her -Distr!ct:_-:-:-.1\:norriey-.--==-===--.:: .. _______ .:::-=.-=::::::-..::==.: 

Counf<el /Waiver of CounBel (select one) 

[ZJ Defendant appeared in person wito Counsel. 

CJ Defendani. knowingly, mtelligcntly. and voluntarily waived the rig-ht w representation b~· counsel in wrinng ir1 open court. 

l: appeared to tne Cour: t:bal Defendant was rnentaDy compcteni. and bad pleaded as shown above to the charg-ing 

'nsr.n,mPnt. Botb uarne~ ;;mwurH.:ed ready for triaL .A .iur:-· was Hele::ted, impaneled. and !'WOrP-. Till' INDl CTI\fE:l\'T wa~ rr,;1d w th!! 

.iu.;~.-. ;:.:-.:~ 0cfendan! tmt.er,.,d P. ple?. tc thl? charg-ed offense. The Court rP<~P.vr,ri tnc pte:1 ano en~:.::~u l.l oi recorci.. 
PASTY PEREZ, CLERK 

TROY HUFFMASTER 

/TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT 

9601 SPUR 591 

AMARILLO, TEXAS 

79107 

DISTRICT COURT/COUNTY COURTS OF LAW 

P.O. BOX 2987 

901 LEOPARD STREET 

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

78403 

RE: MOTION TO COMPEL; CAUSE NO. 08-CR-2271-F 

Dear Honorable Clerk: 

Please find enclosed for presentation to the Honorable Judge 

of the 214th Judicial District Jose Longoria, my "MOTION TO COMPEL 

COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OP APPEALS 

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 

There are no copy services available in TPCJ-CID so I am unable 

to serve a copy of this Motion to the Nueces County District Attorney•i Office if required .. Would you please make ·any needed copies. 

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this very 

important matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

E%'&0~~~- Troy Huffmaster 

Pro Se Representation 
Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F 

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

TROY HUFFMASTER § 214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

TDCJ-CIDf 1537487 § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

***************************************************************** 

MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 

***************************************************************** 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE LONGORIA: 

COMES NOW, Troy Huffmaster, Petitioner, pro se, and respectfully motions this Court for a ruling on Petitioner's pending motion 

titled: "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF 

JUDGMENT." The Petitioner will show this Honorable Court as follows: 

1. On approximately October 2nd, 2014, Petitioner presented 

to this Court: "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION 

OF JUDGMENT." 

2. Consideration of a motion properly filed and before a trial 

court is ministerial. See White v Roper, 640 S.W.2d 586, 594, 596 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1982). 

3. Fundamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity to be heard. See Creel v District Attorney for Medina County, 

818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

4. Thus, a district court may be compelled via mandamus to 
Page 2. 

consider and rule on a pending motion presented to the Court. See 

State ex rel. Curry v Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1987). 

5. Petitioner, Troy Huffmaster, continues to be prejudiced 

in the eyes o£ the ~exas Department of Criminal Justice Classification Department as well as the Board of Pardons & Paroles for 

the reasons set forth in the original Motion to Comply with Court 

of Appeals Modification of Judgment. 

6. For the reasons set forth in the original Motion to Comply, 

as well as the above stated, .Petitioner requests this Honorable 

Court take immediate action and comply with the Court of Appeals 

Mandate and reform the Judgment as ordered. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court 

will take immediate action and reform the Judgment of Conviction 

to reflect that Petitioner was convicted of a· third-degree felony 

escape rather than a second-degree felony escape causing bodily 

injury and immediately send copies of the reformed Judgment to 

the authorities listed on the Motion to Comply. 

Respectfully submitted 

~OJ \-L$V"\AVl; 

/cJ I ..J'3/I<f 

Troy Huffmaster 

Pro Se representation 
'. 

PATSY PEREZ, CLERK 

TROY HUFFMASTER 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS UNIT 

9601 SPUR 591 

AMARILLO, TEXAS 79107 

DISTRICT COURT/COUNTY COURTS OF LAW 

P.O. BOX 2987 

901 LEOPARD STREET 

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

78403 

RE: PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL: CAUSE NO. 08-CR-2271-F 

Dear Honorable Clerk: 

Please find enclosed for presentation to the Honorable Judqe 

of the 214th Juoicial District Jose Longoria, my "PETITIONER'S 

SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 

There are no copy services available in TDCJ-CID so I am unable 

to serve a copy of this Motion to the Nueces County District Attarney's Office if required. Would you please make any needed copies. 

I thank you in advance for your time and attention in this very 

important matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

'Troy Huffmaster 

Pro Se Representation 

Signed on l- J-~ --(.\ 1 2015. 
Cause No. 08-CR-2271-F 

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

TROY HUFFMASTER· § 214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

TDCJ-CID# 1537487 § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 

***************************************************************** 

· PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING 

MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 

***************************************************************** 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE LONGORIA: 

COMES NOW, Troy Huffmaster, Petitioner, pro se, and respectfully motions this Court for a ruling on Petitioner's pending motion 

titled: "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF 

JUDGMENT." The Petitioner will show this Honorable Court as follows: 

1. On approximately October 2nd, 2014, Petitioner presented 

to this Court: "MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION 

OF JUDGMENT." 

2. On approximately December 23rd, 2014, Petitioner presented 

to this Court: "MOTION TO COMPEL COURT TO RULE ON PENDING MOTION" 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT OF APPEALS MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT." 

3. Consideration of a motion properly filed and before a trial 

court is ministerial. See White v Roper, 640 S.W.2d 586, 594, 596 

(Tex.Crim.App.l982). Fundamental requirements of due process mandate 

an opportunity to be heard. See Creel v District Attorney for Medina 

County, 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.l991). 
Page ·2. 

4. Petitioner, Troy Huffmaster, continues to be prejudiced 

1n the eyes of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Classification Department as well as the Board of Pardons & Paroles for 

the reasons set forth in the original Motion to Comply with Court 

of Appeals Modification of Judgment. 

5. The request for modification of judgment was made to the 

Court of Appeals by the State and, the Court of Appeals issued a 

mandate directing this Court to comply with that mandate. As shown 

by this Petitioner by way of exhibit in his Motion to Comply with 

the Court of Appeals Modification of Judgment, this Court's Judgment 

of Conviction by Jury was never changed to reflect that Petitioner's 

conviction should be that of a third-deqree felony escape rather 

than a second-deqree felony escape. 

6. For the reasons set forth in the original Motion to Comply, 

as well as the above stated, Petitioner requests this Honorable 

Court take immediate action and comply with the Court of Appeals 

Mandate and reform the Judgment as ordered. 

7. Failure to comply with this second request to compel this 

Court to Comply with the Court of Appeals Modification of Judgment 

within 21 days of the date below will result in Petitioner filing 

a Writ of Mandamus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court 

will take immediate action and reform the Judgment of Conviction 

to reflect.that Petitioner was convicted of third-degree felony 

escape rather than a secono~degree felony escape causing bodily 

injury and immediately send copies of the reformed Judgment to 

the authorities listed on the Motion to Comply. 

Signed on /-'2_8 ~().- 2015.