HZO-tE

COURT QP CRIMINAL APPEALS DF T2XMS

AUST)Kl TEYAS

MAR, <JL7. 2L0&

HDNDfKAbLS CDUtilDF CRimtHAL APPEALS, ABEL ACOSTA.CUXH

CbUAT OF CKimiMAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. bOX I&3D2 CAPITOL STATlOAj

avstih, tews 7*7/t

Ke : Melvim gourde BRigham v. w state 6f texas

a. APP.MJylH-bbMl-CR

ORIGINAL

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 17 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

L>EAR JW. ACOSTA*.

ENCLOSED FdA FILlN&tS TH£ DRl&lM^L ANO(t)]6N£ COM OF APPELLANT- PETlT/OA!£j{

PETIT/OM FOR &ISLRETWKIARY REVIEu"

PLEASE GIVE MOTILE UPDkl RECEIPT,

THAWK YOU RESPECTFULLY FOA YDUA AlSHTAHCE.

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 06 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

StkiCEABLy

LANT^-fftlt,Tiofln~wwii
LbuRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AUSTM TEXAS

HELVIN FiVhlAOE MlEHAM

AWELLmT-PETlTlbHEK ,

V.

7HE &TIA7E Of TEXAS

APPELLEE -RESPONDENT.

EDA HUMER /3-/4-E>AJ92-Crf

PET/ 7/0/U toA LDISCRETIDNAM AEl/IEU

PlTlTlDHEA-AmiLhtiT COMES mcoMPUMcE OF APPELLATE AL/lES DP T0JE STAT£AA' TFXASAAA£LLA7£

PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO ASSERT THAT IKE /3TFI COUATOP APPEALS UAS LJAML/N ITS MCJSIOA/ ro

kmPW THE t(SN\llLTIOk\ Of THE TRIAL LOUAT OF THE 33?TH DlS7«(C1 LDUR7 E-PUFtAA7£>M£0vMTy,TX.

lE&al Analysis

THE LOU'AT 0F APPEALS INITIALLY LOME-JAMS THATPtTITIDMEA EJ/fSEMVICTIb Af f/ULWC TO C0A7ALYMTMS£X

OFFEHDER REGISTRATION AiEOUJAEJA£MTE IMtiFA T£X. £#££ EM/y. AA6C 4/Va/- MA ^J. /0Z&)&(3) M/IX

ENhahceaieNT Paraeaaphs... The c.o.a.boes not £aovwestatuteiad Padafaly' ljmemtTsmm,

TUE TfilAL COURT PUMISHElS TAE OFFfMSE AS A FIRST-DE&REE FELONY'VMM/lA7.£J. /&Z&)/??£*{iy

STATES "TU£ NEXT NIEMEST DECREE OF FEIONY^UHICH HAS NO PROBATIVE S.TAN&ARDSAMT#£S£tJf£NC£

ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES WATS FIXED BY THE STATES INTENTIONS TD USE PAlORS AT TN£S£MT£NC/NE

PHASE... THE SOLE PURPOSE FOK SumiTTINE^JFOUR PREVIOUS PLEA BAR&AM MldZS LtlTH AN AOOITIOMAL

[X\ PRlORS. ..TOTALLIMELE) SlY PRIORS, PREJUDICED PETlJimH AT 7N£ ABUSE OP DISCRETION' SWEE BY FU£

TR\AL CDOM AMD iMCOyyifiETFAICE Of THE TRIAL COUNSEL TO ABANDON Wt 0&T£CWAJ' E>£ 7UE/A/O/CT/AIHT

\NHEM ATTEMPTING TO CHALLENGE THE SUBANTT/NE 6P TNEADDITIONAL PAIORj, CMVICTJOMS INDtOEA fAA

TUE STATE Tb SATISFY ITS ftE&ISTRATION CNAME.., INHERE IT FAIL TO AD SO &U£ roXt)£XA/AATioM

OFbUTi TD REGISTER. ART.02.lDl. MB FAILURE TO CO/vftlV U/TH A?££/S7AATJEW A£&UIJ?£W£MTS,

AT (A) ART.Ll. IbX UERE GENERAL PENALTIES ADA WM-E0MAL1AMCE £K/ST UNDER Sc/BCAAPTEA C FJHICH IaJAS

bURWL TRIAL, MOT THE EASE-IN-CHlEf TNEDRISTIC MDICTAIEN7 SUA 7NEWEREFACT £MA 7... PETITIONER

AID Hbl MDTlfY THE FORMER USHARTOt! PDUtE DEPARlmEHTOFFICIAL IN A TIMELY AHA77£A£A 7DAYS..-

UPON mELUM'PETITIONER IHTENTlM TD CHAH&E ALSIOEMT MERE HE RESIDES IN 7AEJAn?£

UHI1 UlTH CORPORATE mmAH^miiS b^ 5il^&mAHM£N7UNt^ t^L MSA/mamiNT

AUTHORITY IN THE SAME

tc
MUlCi/VtLITY MILRL TAB .^PETITIONER RESIDES...THE BRIEFS AND PRESENT ASCOAOS OR JlDEhtT. . .

ON IaMEIHER LRU ENFbRCEWENT OFFICIALS TO LJIT: EL CRMF6 mMESTl&ATEh OR CONSULT U/TN THE FOA/n£A

LAU) DP AUTHORITY OFFICIAL THAT 5N<£ REPLACED,, PPlOA TD NOTMlM THE STATE aA

PKOSSCOTDR ID PROCEED /N ENFORCING, SUCH MINOR INFRACTION WAT COUU) HAHEBEEN RESOLVED.

PETlTlDRW/nnW POINT OFEAAOK IS THESTATE AND CM PAJMAY AFAJON TO AFP/AM' JUCM EMWC7/M

&ASED SOLELY AAJ PESlBlNE IN TN£ SAME AiUAlC/PALITYAS SO JMAlE EJN£A£OI/ZAZEAL-

~ DUS ENFORCEAJEAJT IS QUESTI0MA8LE DA/ ITS FACE., . U>»£N SOW£ C/ACUJTC0UA7S bJJU A£V£AS£

SUCH PRIORS, USED DN... ftbTH£NHANCEPi£NT PROCEEDINGS BYTHE TRIAL E0UA7CDMSE&UENFiY

BECAUSE A MOTION TD UlTHhRAU &UILTY PLEAS LJOULD HAVE JSEEA/£AAN7£DYf TNfSUFFICIENT

PACTS, ON THE RECORD TD ESTABLISH EhCN ELEMENTOP WE OFFENSE MOULDHAVEBEEN' CHAUEA/AED

ANB APPELLANT-PETITIONER. PLEAS UAS INVALID, SEE.'COMMON'U£ALTU V.LOAiMC ,-VC3

rnnss. toil °iit m.e. &d 17,3 Patass./o/jiP

WHATS HOT HAVE ISEEN REASONABLE CONSIDERED &i THE APPELLATE COURT IS THE LEVEL OP

PERSPECTNE.UHICH LJAS S.IUENI ON THE BRIEFS AND RECORDS WHEN DETERMINING SUCN

ELlCrlQIUTV LEVEL FDA PE&ISTAATIOM P£OUiR£ir)£NT T7/A7'P£7/7WN£A DID No7 AOS£ A- A/sAOf

RE-DFPEN.SE OA A DANGER TD THE PUBLIC INHERE THE SPtSOPFEND£A AEO/STAY ACTAUOUSA

JUbOE (TRIAL COURT) IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO AELIEVE ASEX OFFENDER PAOAI SUCH

hb£RESl\JE REGISTRATION AE0OIREAIEN7S, 3UT DOES NOT />EArn7 AJUDGE: (miAL Et>UAT) To

ORDER SUCH REGISTRATION UHlCI-t IS &UESTIOHARLE JUDICIAL LAU TD ENFORCE UN£N "THERE

INAS NO STATUTOAY SUPPORT FOA POSITION'".IJHEN 7N£ STA7ES SERAINED PAASIME OF TNE:

TEIT"Vpi' UNTENABLE"SEE I COMMONUAALTIY V. VSMTUAA. ftS MASS JlE)3.,?87 M£, <?4

IHO (PIASS, XDI3). UhlDEA AVAILABLE JURISDICTIONAL PAAW J5VSTATUTORY lAoj APPh£LAM7-

PETlltONER EXEACISlNC CLASSJFICA7J0M STATUS UNDER JUDICIAL AND TEXAS S£X OffEMMA A£&<mY

{SOARD J5V AND ThROOM SUMMATION UNDER DENIAL OA REFUSE E)F PETITIONPOA mcAETIO/IAAY

MVIEU) &y TNIS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IS, OF TREASONABLE AND DEBATABLE EAU). SEETSOE V.

5Et DEFENDER: A££/STKY BDARD, HU MASS, 3S/> ??S ME, Ac! 73 I'/h*ss.AoA3n PCSAMM in

CONFL IC TDISA GPEEMENT THATSATISFIES THE YNlTiAL AND STANAAAB AEl/IEU INAET/YEA 7H£COURT Of

APPEALS DECISION CONFLICTS MTFt ANOTHER COURTAA APAEAU DECISION ON ZN£SAMEISSUEEtMEAl

h\)L\i REErlSTRY' bPiD hMS APPLIED TO APPELLANT PETITIONER BY 7EXAE SEX OFFENDERS AEE-LS7AY ?n>

KEEP THE Rfi&ISTfY CURRENT INHERE PETITIONER*'AESIDEINOT^ESIDED 'IN THE SAmEAlUNICfiALITY

IaIITHIM 7 DA1S...DR FACE STATE PECULATION THROU&H THEDPiPE&ISTRATIDN P£6>UIA£A7EN7S

UNDER STATE LRU) AT THE DISCRETION DP TAE PPOSECUTOA OF ANY &H/ENSTATEJ££PUA//T£JS sm£S

V, MURPHV. OS HP.3d 7n (IOTA CIA. ADUNSUPPORTED BY UN/TEA STATES V. LUNSFPAD v7AS F.Sd

%$% ($TH CIR. A0J3). THE SPECULATIVE INTENT TO PESIDE IN WE SAAIE AAEA Of MUN/ciMCiry

r-DR PA\LURE TD 6-IVE NOTICE TD LAD ENfOACEWENT//OFFICIALS UOITHlN 7DAYS ARIB

RESULTS IW A