LOUitl OF CUMINAl J\7\>EI\LS ·1~,} /l-,a.-a. + 

t\us·-yr_l,L JEX/\S t?<u ~ t -1 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

JUL 14 2015 

Abel Acos~a, Clerk 

·l(E.: 1h rt_ t\ r+huv b.cl\J id LbJJJt .. CAu~E No .. ~5 Cf156-~~ 

f:.nc_losd heve;nkJ l+h. 'I?LL.~~foy 1J' ~1101-IIJN Fort L~AV~ 

\tJ Fl Lt.. ,Ll.KIT OF Hli\l\\ D~hU 3.) \.u' th o{f·u:_l~) ruor-d s. 

·1\td.$~ C\c ~~e. [S.:.ne] a"d ~ve.sen+- t-o +h~ Couvt 

tDY UJhJ i~e_v~+i Oh. 

Th ~3 h ~ -S 3·~ Vi d ~ ~0 I be~hq·· r;\ J l;j I +h +h ·~s (MtYT.IDJJ/ 

{~e_ Udh~J hcis beeh del;vne~ by IJ.S. Mcill '?oshl Ser-

\/1 u: {0: C \--\ rzJ..S DAtJJ ~ L ~ HI\ILiliS c.oumY, Drs-rrzrL-r LLErLl<. 

r. 0. 136 'X Lf ~51 j ~ou_~/b}J I --n:: 'XAJ 7121 D .. LJ~ s l. 

_ To k -C\e.d pv-ueSJ +o +he. 1-\ohov.db\~ Ju~~L M-.nr;d I. 

L I£U.U) J A C. \<.SOJJ. .5C:r v \ L.C at- +he.. dct; on s t &ken ~·h +he. 

Coual or-LfllYllNf\L t\VrEJ\L£ I ( tllJilDJ\J rotz.. LEr:\VE=. ID Fllf \JJrzrr 

Df nAN Df\MUS.; 

l , -tv-u ly d p p Ye..c. ~ ;>.\::e_ ~ D uv LD n s -~.~t. v c\+ ; o h ... T~i I'IW K Vw--

lldJ CCJb b I e.ss Yo Lt • yDu V F cl n 1 ly clr. J t 1 ends. 

1-\Q.LJOII p., \) LE ~ 1\ 1\ !L1.1\ -r. LT E: ll(Ll l ;s 1\t \(S 0 1\l S.l h LHL: ~ . 3U~ht 3Jq1l4 ~U\'JtU.I\L DlJIIZJ:CT LDurti. . r:lathM d~ 

A1l_1l\LJrL LOl!Jf#tbcrJso 

HUtiHf:S IJruiT. 

IcC 2. BoX LJi/60 

G.A-r~ s V.1lLEJ T0.As 

th\q} 
ARTHUR LOWE #(j69750 

HUGHES UNIT 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TX 76597 

TV PISTRICI' ' CLERK 

. Memo_J'llDdo~~ to ~~po~~+ed= 04114/1<1__ 

Re: Cause No(s} 065915601010 & 06591.5401010. 

Dear MR. LOWE, 

f . 

Direct Dial Line: 

--- ·- -·- ' 

f;g] · Your motionlrequest NUNC P~ ~C was filed with _the Di:driet Clerk and oa 

04/21/14 the Court: : . 

0 Tookno....:,; 0 ~+M~ 181 Gnmtedyoarm_req_ 

o Tookadlo• o -rm,;,..,,_.... o' oo. .. 

~ Other: PLEASE FIND A'ITAC. A) COPY OF THE CORRECTED JUDGMENT 

AND SENTENCE." ALSO, OUlt RECORDS BA VE . BEEN CORRECTED TO· 

REFLECT. 2~· DEGREE FELONY - 1 AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE 

VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE. 

- ·--·····----·-- -- . -

, ·~-~- 'Jpx·;46~~. ·~ -~oumJN. ....... ,.. . ......... c"' .. : .t~ ......... ··.a··-~·1:- ; : --- 

' ' 

I. 

' 
Vl 

..... 

0 

.,.~'\ . 

>. ~iCORDfRS MfMORANDUM: 

This insfrdment is of poor qualifY 

and:i1ot satisfactory for phO!LJgraphic 

redlrdatlon; and/or alteraltons were ~ED @>'I :.:NutJl:. ft1o 

present at the time of filming. · /1 ~~~ 

tJ 'f :.:tr 6 

THE STATE OP TEXAS NO·--------+----+~J~----------- :nr ~ __ '3_-;_q_--fll _ ___,_ Dl:STRl:CT 

vs. 

Attorney 

for statea 

Offenses 

..:nJDGICBir.r OR juay VBRDXC-1: OF 

Degreea · 

Ch~rging . . 

l:nstr~enta :rndictment/~aCa~•aa 

Jv.ey Verd.l.ct: 

P1ea to Enhancement 

Paragraph (a) a /ll D + A~firmative P'.l.ndinga: ropriata aelec1km 

DEADLY WEAPON: Yea INo :N/A 

COURT PF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

Change o~ Venue From: ____ /1/_r!A"-".__ ___ _ I 

PURXSIDIBII!I! Fl:XBD BY COURT OR JURY 

Attorney . J t /.1 f ~or De~endanta 1 AJ f\ "f [ 1 Waivcct cou-1 

Date Offense J1Jt1 -~-·f. 

COmm.i.tteda / 'f ""' ..... 

P1eaa 

Foreman: /Ja.v 1'd 

F.i.nd.i.nga on 

Enhancement a 

N/A ,.l -available cw- app 

xOLl!!NCEa Yea INo : HATE CRIMEa Yea JNo I . 

PunJ.ahment 

A&aeaaed by • 

~:a:~ .. 0Cl()l9et- ~ (qt{: 

TQta1 Amount of , 

R&atitution/Reparation/Raward: AJ(~ 

Reat.i.tut.i.on/Reward 

Name a Ad~e-a_s_: ___________ _,~---,~r---~~ 

statement of Amount of Payment (a) reqg &ci/Terma of Amount a+! ---------+----4::::t,.....?H:---

whicb - - waivcct aud allcaa Dcfaidud 10 birve beea . . 

cmhancemealofpu.nm-as. lbe ~..ked De~WIIIICb all ~ lnlo or flabe •ad ~ ............... Jlbowaabave. Aad,.,...... Defa...s.nt ia 

Jlbowa .hove 10 have elected 10 bavo lbej..q _..ll'"nieh-, juq w~ ca1lcd back IIIlo the box ....sihcard cvidcoce nolative 10 abe qUC8IioD of pualehmcal 

....S bavlua been dul7 chaqcd b7 !he~ lbc7 .,cin:4 to cctJDidu ...,... aud after baviQa ~ lbc7 ntu.-.1 IIIlo Caud lho verdict abowD under 

puaillunem above; and wbetl Dcfcadaal. ~ Jlbowa 8bavo to ba- 10 brio puaWuaeal fixed b7 lhe Capat. iD due form of law flulher ovid-• wu beard by 

lhe Court relalive 10 lhe quesliOD of pvniduneQ1 and abe Caul\ fixed , of !he DofoDdaat u abowD ~-- · 

rr IS. T1IEREF01U!. CONSmEREJl AND ORD ..,. ...... c-.t_ ba tho .-of tho Dcr....lao:. dud !he ..WJuda- be ....S dao ......,,. 

bCI'Cb7 ia alllbi,.. appnwed and -..a ..... aud tb81 the Dcfeadlml atijudJ-, auiJt7 of !he om:....- fo~ aloove .. fOUIId b71he -.diet oflbejul)', and Aid 

Defcadanlbe pualmed ill acccmlaDce wilh lhe Juey verdicl M lho •a ~. u ahownabave aud that b.. Defeadaa& ia -cd 10 a 1enn of impri110nlllllnl 

or f'mcl or bolb, aa - forlh abo-, aud thallhe Aid Def'cadalll be b~ lhe SberiffiO lhe Directar of !he Texas Depadmellt of Crimiaal JIUiice, Institutioa 

Diviaion. or Olher penoo.lepDy IIU1horit.ed 10 rec~vo IIICb c:oo.vicla or lhe pjuullhmellt •-aed bereiD. ~ lhe aiel Def'clldaa&8ball bo CODfiDcd for lbe abovo 

named 1enn iD accordmce wilh lhe praviaioDa of .... aovemiJta mch puaiot...)-.. aud exeeutiollma7 &-j.. __ .,._ Fudhor. lbe COUft Gada tho PneentcDco 

Iavcatiplioa. if 110 ordered, waa doao acconllua tO !he applicable p df Art. 41.12, Sco. 9. Code ofiCrimiDall'l'occduro. 

c.- AND 1be aid DcfenolaDt waa re~ 10 jail UDiil uidforifl' faa obey !he clireclloa ollbia:Ju.t.-m. tifCoRDER'& MEMORANDUM 

I 1 I . 1 lllla ln81Nment 18 of poor qualilJ P1_~a:~&f!=J~IB· J~ry:_-:"' co~~(~~~;~l!aaeaai Puzr-1.ahmenJ - ._., ... ,.::..., ..... < -· .... "-.··· :·.atthet!~-~!~~i~g, .... o.- ..... ,, 

cRM-4 · R10-07-93 I ·! - I , Pag~ 1 •:.:£._ :-"s I ;::u.o-.. c"?-93 .-
*"- :L'O BE COMPLETED ONLY WHEN· •. ~ROBAT%0111. - , OF SENTENCB SUSPENDED .. AND DEFENDANT GRANTED 

j 'o.a lhi• .... ------- day or -------+---------J' l!J:...._ __ __,__ impoaidOD ordlia -IICO ia RUpoaded aad 

cfefendaal Ul plaeed oa Mulll'robalioa tor ...,:.----~--+--run~ Ilia abkfin$ b7 &ad'- vtorau.w d11o rei'DIII IUid coodidODII.orpmballon, 

i "PPruvecl b7 1hla coun aad -..hcd aa a pad.'or lhia jl&damn& 

B :t I. COSTS I 

----------------------~--------~----------------~---------------=~~----1 I 

Payment Typaa ___ (S, X, o, M or La)· (H~a Xf •x• or •o• sea attached order) I 

Ja:Ll. Tl.ma: _ B/D/H/Y ,..-. ..ccst!_ ~/N _• _ Y-Yas N-No (ja:1.1/f:Lna/coat concurrent) I 

Tl.ma Aaaeaaed Texaa Depa.rt:&'Dant of Cr.,... . ca, %nat:Ltut:Lona1 D:Lv. •----- D/H/Y I 

Ja:Ll. crad:Lta B/D/H/Y · ·Sentence Date: - I 

Ja:Ll. aa a Term of Probat:Loln I B/DlH/Y Add:Lt:Lona1 :Ja :Lt: ______ H/D/H/Y 1 

Payabl.e on or Before a ·' 1 Reward SPill a COCa 

Hour& of ce t~ be Served by P~rfo:rm:Lng oommun:Lty se-rv~:L-c_a __ _ 

Dafendant to Sa:rva Sentence by on:Lc: Honi.tor:Lng? (Y :or N) 1 

NOTE TO SBERXFPa ______ ~-=~--------~~--~-~---~-=~~~~~~--~-=~--------~~=-~~~ Tranacri.pt at• · Pagea •••••• l" . I C:r:Lma ·,stoppers Faa........ 2 I 00 

Se:rv:Lng C&pi.aaa _f!_J__/Summ~naa • '3 yll' 8 Jury Pee................. a01 IJO 

summon:Lng 0 ~ Wi.tneaa/Mi.l.a~a....... • · • u-1 0 b CJPP. ~ ••••••• •........... 201 00 

Jury Pee............................ • ~~ LEOSBP................... 1 I 50 

Tak:Lnga Bonds ••••••• ,.......... • FJ CVCP. ~ •••••••••••••• ~.... c:5l6li 00 

comm:Ltmant •••••••••••••••• ~......... • c=l DCLCP.................... I 

Re1eaaa ••••••••••••••••••• ~......... • -:a-1 JCTP.;;................... 1 I 001 

Attachment ••••••••••••••••. ~......... • I V:Ldao •Pee................ I I 

Arrest W/0 Warrant/Cap:Laa •. ~......... • I I I DWX ~al.uat:Lon Fee....... I I 

-------------- RECAPXTvLATXOH ------r----~--------1 Rewar~ Repayment......... I I 

Fi.ne Amount ••••••••••••••• ,. •••••••• "1" I · I · I Secur:Lty :rae............. 15 I 001-

M:Lacel.l.anaoua coats ••••••• ,. ••••••••• l. I • I I Recorda Preaervat:Lon Pee. 10 I ee~ 

Judi.ci.al. Fund Faa ••••••••• :. •••••••••• I . I I ACCA.J................... 1 

spac:Lal. Expense..................... • I • · I I P:Lnanc:La1 Reapona:Lbi.l.i.ty. I 

Tl:" 1.&1 Fee. ~ •••••. • ••••••••• ·.•. : • • • • • • • • • I .'·;· I I PTR Fa.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Di.atr~ct Attorney Pee ••••• •.•••••••••• . • I • ~I Attorney Pee.......... • • • 1 

Cl.erlc a Faa......................... • I , 4 . I Braat~ Al.coho1 Teeti.ng... 1 1 1 Sher:Lf~•e Faaa (Tota1) .............. ·• I ~ I RahabJ:.l.~tati.on :&"und ...... 1 1 1 

Hi.ademeanor coats................... • I · 'J. I I Amount Probated/Wai.ved ••• Tf:JI..t ~SVI MAP Traffi.c Costa ••••••••• ;. •••••••••• I , I I TOTAL AMOUNT OWED •••••••• 1~1 

S:Lgned and entered th:La the eRe d~y o~J 

Noti.ca of Appea1a 

Probat:Lon Expi.reea 

Mandata Recai.vad: 

/O-~fl19~ 

-~-:-----+1 19_;_ 

Jv~.e 19 'f 13' 

: ~. 

A 

IU~~­

rr/I"'IIU..'e/. 

~ 

-. ,~ C.l)ul'-7 o.f A flt~q I~· 

After Mandata Raca:Lvad, sentence to Bag:Ln Date i.s• CJ,..;.,J,Jl,.. :J..'B', fqq'$ ~J...,•.JJ.. 

(Cbccok ONLY lf Applicable) 

l J Dorc..u. 10 ""placed ia 111o ~S.A..I..P.r 9> p 

62.03 (c)-!J Raviacd Slalldcaf.Adicle 42.12. 8, C.C P. 

Reca:Lvad on day 0.~ . .,...· ...;..------4----.....i..-' A.D., 

Sheri.ff, H~, Texas 

By a -----------::,---"""""----;.' --.-, Depu y 

L r ~g_qq &:Ita-- : Entare~(Jf{ilM ~qq I : I 

I Vari.fi.ed · I 

------------'--' 

CRM-.Qo • ·Rl,0-07-93 

._: .. .1 ..... ~·:.. > .... ·~:~ 

"f· ~-~ ;.;J!t;~ 

;:;t~ 2. ;;;! q y ~ C..l"'t! ;('-f 

19 ____ •at -------- o•cl.oclc _____ M. 

I 

t 

I 

f 

I 

I 

.- :".- · .... .. . 

Dafandant•e 

R~ght Thumbp:ri.nt 

I 

I 

I 

J 

I 

I 

I 
iJ 177th 

~· 

-~ -........ 

THE STATE OF TEXAS . GJ· 

vs. 

ARTHUR DAVl:D LOWE SPN 00227697 

5771 .. OVERDALE. DOB BM/12~9-60 

HOUSTON. TEXAS 77033 

FELONY CHARGE: 

AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING 

CAUSE N0:659156 

HAIUUS COUNTY 

DISTRICT COURT N0:~3~3~9~TH=------

DATE PREP~-:4-22-93 BY:4-22-93 DA NO:.J.li 

AGENCY:WEST U 0/R N0:1930127 

NCIC CODE·: 1007-10 ARREST DATE: ___ _ 

RELATED cAsES: 

2 OTHER FELONIES THIS DEF 

D.A. LOG NO. 23368 , . ~) ,m 

CIJS NO. ~ . /p...,. 9 0' · 

. BAIL $ jVQ. 5)rn;: . Vot:...:..Pag~AXQy PRIOR CAU~E NO: ________ _ 

Ill '!HB DMB U1D BY AUDOIUft OJ' THB STATB O'H TBDSI 

-.The duly -~orqaJJi.z.ed ~rand Jury of. Harris . County,· Texas,: . presents in the 

District Court of Harris Coiulty~ ''l'exas:"·"tliat iit·ilarris County,. Texas,. __ A!l'!lma ·. 

DAVJ:D LOWB, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about DRCB. 4, · 1993, did then and there unlawfull;x·, intent~on~lly and knowingly abduct TANYA 

·.MILLER LODEN, hereafter styled ttie Compla~nant, without her consent, with 

intent to prevent her liberation by secreting and holding the complainant in 

a place where the complainant was not likely to be found and with intent to 

-facilitate the commissdon of a felony, namely aggravated robbery. 

Before the commission of the offense alleged a,bove (hereafter styled the 

primary offense) , on January 23, 1979, in .cause· No. 283709, in the 228th 

District co~ of Harris County, Texas, the Defendant was convicted of the 

felony of indecency with a c:;:hild. · 

. . . 

Before the commission of the. primary offense, and after the conviction· in 

Ca"Qse No. 283709· was final, the Defendant committed the felony of burglary of 

a building and was _convicted on July 28, 1988, in cause No. 507052, in the 

', 183rd District court of Harris county, Texas. 

AGAINST 'l'HB PBACB UD DIGNITY 0"1 THB STATE. 

177th Foteman 

.~J.a~ FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY 

' 

I ~ .. ;~ .:; .. -~; .... ·) :~· ..... ::.~ ~~ r ' ' 

,..... .. .. .... :.. · .. : ......... . ~:;,::.5~:.: .:.. . ~ ' ) ' . . ... l~ ·;~'. 

• ;;:.,,.,',];;>" ...... -::?J .:." ~.! .... ~1~~ >Ti'O .''t ',\ v:• i'wt'~. ,J't< 

~ ':.. .. ~- __ ,: .... -··-
'V 

R£CORDER:S MEMORAN~M: . 

This ins:r~ment is of poor quahty . and rwi. 'satisfactory for p~raJJh,c 

rectkdation; and/ or alterations w~e 

PI esen~ :Jt th~.;.• r.Cme of fit mini!. 

THE: STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. 

I 

b5"'1 /)6 NO·--~--------~--------+-

Lowe.-

-; 

~rN- 'J]q+'t ! ,-:_~ ·------- D:ISTIUCT ( 

; 

:coURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

of ~enue From: JP /4. 

I 

cotlR!I!· OR JtiRY 

Judge Presiding: cq ,/{c.. Lo "-r Jud~nt: Oc..-lo 6cy .;;{ qqJ --~------~~~~~--~~------------r---~--~--------~~~ 

Attorney 

for State: 

Offense: /J 9i r 4 v4l~ el 

Degree: fD 

Charging 

Instrument: Indictment/~ferma~!en 

Jury Verd.i.ct.• 

Plea to Enhancement 

Parag~aph(s): No+ 

Affi.rmati.ve l!'.i.nd.i.ngs: (em; roprioluclccliaD-NIA- aataYOilablooraatjiq>p•li91>1cl~ 

DEADLY WEAPON: Yes (No IN/A FAMILY VIOLENCE: Yes IN HATE CJUHE: 

c. 

c. 

·C 

,c._ 

=:a:~e: ()et()@er d-g flltl 

Time Credited:~~~ tJ(fo 

concurrent Unless Otherwise Specified=--~~~--------- / Res~itution/Reward t 

I 

statement of Amount of Payment(s) required/Terms 

Tbil calde beiDa caUed CDr lrial, 1110 Sla1o appca:ed b;r die oboYD aaa.d IIIIDmCJ', aad 1110 defi:adlua appca:ed Ia p.- opeo caun, riae ·-

llllmcd COUIIICI Car Dcraadaat abo beiDa praoils, or wbcno a dcfcadom Ia aati:Cp1"C-..I b:r 1110 ~ lalllwiual:r. iuldlipud;r, aad whaataril;r 

waived 1110 riabl to repraeawioa by COUIIICI u iDdicaled lbcwe, aad 1be l&id Dcfimdml baW!a duJ:r ~ Uld il oppcoriq to lbe Caulllbat Dcrcadaal 

...,. mcntaJI:r compctcaload baW!aplaadedu obawDoboYDto lbe clwJIUi8 illllramelll, ba1h ~read)> !Dr trW aadlbaeuponajury,loo'Wil, lbe 

abDYC IIIIIDOd forcmaa Uld clcvca olhon wu duly ICiccUd, imjomoled, aad - 1110 jury baW!a ita.~ imllrumelll n:ad aad lbe Def"eadud'o plea 

thereiO oad 11rt1aa beard lbe cvideoce aabmiUed oad ...;.;.. -dilly charJed b:r IIJo Caurt, • ia eiJaati or tbo propor olilcer" to comlder1bo verdict, aad · 

aftcrwud ..- brouaJu lalo Caull b;r lbe prapcr olliccr, tbo Dcf"eadud oad dcf"eadud'a CCIUIIIIII, • , bciaJt p-, oad n:lllnled lalo opea COIIlt tbo ~ ICl 

fonh oboYD, wbicb .... r=cived b:r ..... Caull oad Ia lurro ...... ea1cred apoalbe llliriWa. or lbe .. ..._;. .-. 

tlet-o~ c!J% rl3 ! ..... Dcf"eadud """iDa pmriaudy elcctcd to 

havo p1lllilb=d uoeued b:r tbo oboYD obowll-or p1lllbhmeDI. oad wbea ......... ...,., lbe ~~Com.iao·at,._paropph(s), 

which wore aat walved aad allepo DcCcadaalto bow bcca CCIIIYic:led . ~ :r ~r 11111 reloD;r or olli:ueo lbr lbe pwpooe or 

eabaocemcasorp1lllishmcal, lho_Coun" ull:ed DeCcodoat if-ollcpllau:......,- or faloo oad L .. ......,. obove. ADd wbcra Dcf"eadudia 

sbown oboYD to have olecled to bow IIJo jwy - puaialuDolit, llldl.iuri wu calkd bact: lalo box oad hj.anJ cviclcuco nlalivo to lbe quuaiou of p1llli.sbmcat 

and bavirla bcca clul:r eboiJed b;r IIJo Coutt; !hey retired to CCIIIIidu ouch quoaioa aad after dclibaarcd dlc:r n:lllmed ialo Court lbe vcrd-.ct ahawa 111111cr 

pu..w.-m ahove; aad ""- Defeadul Ia obowllabDYC lo batio eloclod lo have pouiabmoat bod ""' ~ io clue 6mra or law ~~arch. ovldcm:a,.. bead h:r the Caul\ relative to the quoaioa or plllliJhmolll oad lbo Coat\ 6xal pwUJbmoal or lbo Dc&adaat sbown aJ!ove. 

rr IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AND ORDERED b:r lbe Coud, io tba or tba ·o.'&....t...t,lbat tba aid jwtprrclll be oad ...... - io 

benby io all lbinp appnm:d aDd coafirmed, oad 1hal tba Del"cllllml Ia aof.JIIdpd .,ntty oftba o ICl &.J abDYC ao fauad b;r IIJo ~ or lbe jwy, uuloaW 

Dcfoadlal be punished In IJ:COIIIa=e wilh 1b& J1117 "Velllkt or lbe Coull'a1iadirJa, u llbOWD oboYD dllllbj. Dcfcadlml Ia -.s to a tarm or Unprlaorlmoal 

or !iDol or bo1b. u 101 fonh abovo, aad 1hal tba llid Dcfcadlml bo dcliverc4 b;r tba SJicrur to tba or~ Tau Deparlmad or ClimiDd Jllllice, lilllilulioa 

o-.vmDA, or Olbor pencmlcpllr au1bari2led to noccive ouch CGII'Iicla lbr the puailhmcaliiiCIICCI ~ aad il.o llid -Defaulaat lflaiJ be COilliocd for the abDYC (: ' t 

named lanD io aecanlaac:o wilb IIJo proviaialll or law aOYarllbli ouch p~aad u=lllioa r+:r iamo u· aeccuu:r. l'urlbct, the caont fiadlthe Prc-=:o 

... lnvealipt"&aa, if 10 anlan:d, .... dono ac:c:onlioj: lo tba opplieoblc proviaUml or All. 42.12,1 Sec., Cadc orCrimioal ~ 

, 

• 

. . 

t I 

AND the uid Dcfmdaal wu mmadcd 

, 

to jaihmdlllid 

I f 

Sbcrilf : Icau olloy the di • oflbil ~ I 

·::Pl:"ea Before Jury - Court/J~~- A~sess.i.ng P,unish!:lant .. · - ·-.} , . :~~·:/~;~~:~w~~~i .. ·· ,c~c;;.,-<. ;".Jti\2-~: '"'' 

CRM-4 Rl0-07-93-- ...... • . . ' ; · · Paae 1 

STATE'S Wlff~ 

EXHIBIT 

"" 
*~ ~0 BZ OOHPLBTZD ONLY ~ XMPO. SXT~Ot · .,_.ROBATZON. 

" 

OF 'sZNTZNcz susPENDED AND DEPENDANT" GRANTED 

j ·aa diD .... ------- clay or -----~---t--...;..---.-J· 19-________ impo8idoD or diD -acola ... opoadcd aDd 

cfefelllful ia piKed oa AdUB Probalioa fill' _,_-----==1--+-.-,j,. pend'"uqr bla abidJJW b7 lUid!.-viola~ die ranns aad colldidmuo_of' pn>badon, 

appmved b71hia c-aDd......,.....- a pan'oflhisj...,_.. I 

B :t It o:p COSTS 

-------------------------~----------+----~-----------------~--------------------~~~~-----~ I 

Payment Typea _____ (S, x, D; M or La) Xf •x• or •o• see attached order) 1 

Jai.l. TUnal _ B/D/M/Y,_.~- Y-Yea N-No (ja1.1/f1.ne/coat concurrent) I 

Time Aaaeaaed Texas Dapart~en~ of cr;m . ce,Xns~i.~u~i.onal. Di.v.a _______ D/M/Y 1 

Jai.l. credi.t:r B/D/H/Y · ~Sentence Date:r I 

Ja1.1 aa a Term of Probati.olu _l B/DfM/Y Addi.~i.ona1 :Ja i.t=---= H/D/H/Y I 

Payabl.e on or Before• ; 1 R&warci SPIU coc-;-" I 

HOurs of santa ca to be Served by Performi.ng eommuni.ty Servi.ca 

Defendant to serve Sentence by B1act oni.c; Moni.torJ.ng7 (Y .or N) a 

NOTE TO S~XPPa _______ ~--~--------~-~~--~----~~~~-~-------~~----------~-~~~~ Tranacri.pt ata · Pagaa •••••• 1. , I Cri.me,Stoppera Fee........ 2 I OOl 

Servi.ng Capi.aaa 0 I /Summonaa • a S"'l "B Jury Fee................. aDI IJD I summoni.ng__Q_Lwi.tnaaa/M1.1e~ge ••••••• , • 2J.;"I tJ b CJPP • .:.................... 20 I 00 I 

Jury Fee •••••••••••••••••• ~......... • ~~ LEOSBF................... 1 I SOl 

Taki.nga Bonds ••••••• ~......... • t=l CVCF.~-·················· ~ 001 

Commi.tment •••••••••••••••• ~......... s=l DCLCP.................... I I 

Re1eaae ••••••••••••••• ,............. • ~-1 JCTF..................... 1 I 001 

Attachment •••••••••••••••• ~.......... I VJ.deo•:rae................ I 1 

Arrest W/0 warrant/Capi.aa.~ •••••••••• I I DWX ~al.uatJ.on :rea....... 1 1 -------------- RBCAPXTULATXON ------ ---~---~--1 Rewar~ Repayment......... I I 

Fi.ne Amount ••••••••••••••• ~......... I · · I securJ.ty Pee............. 5 OOIMi.ace11aneoua COata ••••••• ~-········l· I I Recorda PraaervatJ.on Pee. I 10 eel Jud1.c1.a1 FUnd P'ee •••.•••••• "- •••••••••• I I ACCA • ..! ••••••••••••••••••• I I 

Speci.a1 Zxpenae ••••••••••••••••••••• ·• I I I FJ.nanci.a1 Raaponsi.bi.l.i.ty. 1 

Tri.al. Fee .........•.•..... ~-· ..•...... _,. I ; 1 I PTa F~a.................. 1 Di.atr~ct Attorney Pee ••••• ~ •••••••••• I i n1! ~I Attorney Pea ••••••••••••• I 

Cl.erk • a· Fee ••••••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • I i 4~ I Breat .. A1coho1 TaetJ.ng. • • 1 1 1 

M

Shi.edri.ff•s Fee• t(Tota1) •••• ~ ••••••••• 

1 

.. ~I 

1

1 RehabJ.l.J.tati.on JI'Und •••••• 1 :II 1 s emeanor cos s ••••••••••••••••••• _. i" Amount Probated/WaJ.vecl ••• 1f:J~ !.s-vl 

MAP Traffi.c Coats ••••••••• ~......... • I TOTAL .'AMOUNT OWED........ ~~~ 

sJ.gued and entered tbJ.a the c:Rod yo~ (}fi~,:.' . ~.D.; ~- Noti.ce or Appea1a / {) - Ol_ 1119.2.3: _ _ 

Probati-on Bxp~res: --~--~-----------r' 19 __ ; -- , XNG B 

Mandata ReceJ.ved: Jv~..e ~<;( 19ft;' Arr,·~-.#..~ -. JL"' LDII,...., o.( A,,~~~~. I~· 

Oc..-I4J~.er ~~' /qq3 ~,u,·j( 

;;t"J 2.. ;;! q y $ • c..~-e ;(,· f : 

A~ter Mandate Recai.vad, sentence to Beqi.n Date i.ac 

(Cbcck ONLY It Applkablo) 

( ) DeCcadaal to bo placed ill die ~S.A.I.P.!' 7) p iD IIJo Toxu ~of Criuiiaal ,_.,, lluilllulioaaJ Div1aioa penuaDl to Art. 

62..QJ (c)-9 RavUcd Statu1ca1Adiclo 4%.12. • a. C.C P. 

Rece~ved on ·day of ,..' ~---------t----+-' A.D., 

Sheri.ff, H~,·-~exas 

Bye ----------:::--~-----+' --....-..., Dapu y 

l{~~qq&:ta---

: BnterecOtJ O.~M ~qq I , I 

I Var.i.f~ed · f 

--------~----~-1 

19 ____ at -------- o•cl.ock ____ H. 

: :" .... · ... •. -

De~endant•s 

R~gh~ Thumbprint 

: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
'.: ·-

/ 

Ca~ ~~~:::;:,::0l0 

Lowk • .J;HUR DAVID t 

j a/kla_ 

In the 339TH District Court r C~unty Criminal Court at Law No._ 

Ha ris Qounty, Texas 

. ENTRY OF 'DGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC 

Today, the Court held a heari~g on J 

0 the State's written motiqn for judgment nunc pro tunc. . ; .. . 

181 the Defendanes "tten motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 

0 its own motion. 

Satisfied from its own recoil tion and I or from the evidence presented the Court 

grants the motion and ORDERS en of the following judgment in the minutes of the 

·Court in the above styled and numbe ed c~e to make the following correction: ; 

:1- OFFENSE FOR WHICH DEFEN ANT CONVICTED SHOULD READ: 

AGORA VA TED KlDNAPPING RElEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE . 100714 

2- DEGREE OF OFFENSE SHOUL READ: t~0 DEGREE FELONY. 

181 If applicable, the '··judgment nunc pro tunc supersedes the erroneous 

judgment previously entered and anaihed. · 

I 
...... 

0 

t<'l 

TJIE STATE OF TExAs 

v. 

LOWE,. ~THUR DAVID 

STATE ID No.: TX02465170 

CAS No. '065915601010 

INCIDENT 0./TRN: 9000184029-AOOl 

+I 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 339TH DISTRICT 

COURT 

HARRIS COUNTY, TExAS 

JuDGMENT o(F CoNVICTION BY JURY 

Judge Presiding: HoN. CAPRICE COSPER jDate Judgment 10/2211993 !Entered: 

Attorney for State: DANRIZW 'Attorney for JIM RUST ]Defendant: 

Offense for which Defendant ConvicBJd: 

AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VIC'fiM IN A SAFE PLACE (100714) 

Chanting Instrument :statute for Offen~: .. 

INDICTMENT iN/A 

;Qa te of Offe!!§e; 

3/411993 ' 

Degiee of Qffense; :Plea to Offense: 

2ND DEGREE FELONY NOT GUILTY 

Verdict of Jurv; Findine:s on Dead])! WeagQn; 

GUILTY N/A 

Plea to I st. Enhancement Plea td 2nd Enhancement/Habitual 

Paragraph: NOT TRUE iParagtaph: NOT TRUE 

Findings on 151 Enhancement fFindin'gs on 2nd 

Paragraph: TRUE. [Enhan~mentJHabitual Paragraph: TRUE 

Puni§h~ ~~ssed bv; Date Sentence Imoo~d: Da~ S~mten~ to Commence: 

JURY 10/28/1993 10/28/1993 

Punishment and Place LIFE INSTITUTIO NALtDIVISION, TDCJ of Confinement: 

THIS SENTENCE SHJ ILL R~N CONCURRENTLY. 

D SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT SUSPENDED, DIFFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR N/A • 

Fine: 

$NIA 

Court Costs: Restit&tion: Restitution Pavable to: 

$ 134.50 $ Nl 0 VICTIM (see below) 0 AGENCY/AGENT (see below) 

to tbie Defendant. TEX. CoDE CRIM. PROC. chapter _62 • 

~ to 

&!Time 

~Credited: 

00 

~ 

-

ora 

0 

to 

to 

~ AU pertinent informatioD. names and asseSsments indicat above "'e incorporated mto the laapage ol the judgment below by reference. 

~ This cause was called for trial in Harris County, Texai The State appeared by her District Attorney. 

Counsel/ Waiver of Courtsel <select one) I 

a ~ Defendant appeared in person with Counsel I . ~ 0 Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily w "ved tlie right to representation by counsel in writing in open court. 

~ It appeared to the Court that Defendant was men lly coknpetent and had pleaded as shown above to the charging 

8 instrument. Both parties announced ready for trial. A ju was sklected, impaneled, and swom. The 1!\iDICTMENT was read to the 

,jt'~ey, ~·~ :7' ~·~,: ~· w ~ ~oo ·~-. ~:t~~;; ~ :. :~7~ m:~nL . "c""""~ ,, "~~"*' 
.,., 

"0 

<'-. . 'i-.,,;.ejwy-~eard the evidenoe submitted and _lent of m..;...._ The Court obarged the juey as to its ducy to dete.,;,uie tha 

g'~ilt or Innocence of Defendant, and the jucy retired to cdnsider the evidence. Upon returning to open court, the jury delivered its 

verdict in the presence of Defendant and defense counse if any! 

, The Court received the verdict and ORDERED it ntere~ upon the minutes of the Court. 

· Punishment As es ed b Ju I C u I No el ctioni select one i8J UllllJ'. Defendant entered a plea aad Jiled a written el · n t4 have the jury assess punishment. The jury heard evidence relative to 

the question of punishment. The Court charged the jury d it re~d to consider the question of punishment. After due deliberation, 

the jury was bt-ought into Court, and, in open court, it ret rned its verdict as indicated above .. 

0 Court. Defendant elected to have the Court assess pu •. hm.ent. After hearing evidence relative to the question of punishment, the 

Court assessed Defendant's punishment as indicated abo . 

0 No Election. Defendant did not file a written election . to whether the judge or jury should assess punishment. After hearing 

evidence relative to the question of punishment, the Court fssessed Defendant's punishment as indicated above. 

The Court FINDS Defendant committed the abovEt offen~ and ORDERS. ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendant is 

GUlL TY of the above. offense. The Court FINDS the Pre~ntence .. Investigation, if so ordered, was done according to the applicable 

provisions of TEX. CoDE CRIM. PRoc. art. 42.12 § 9. j . 

The Court ORDERS Defendant punished as indi ted abOve. The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs. and 

restitution as indicated above. , · 

Punishment Options (select one) i • 

181 Confinement in State Jail or Institutional Divisi n. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of Texas or the 

Sheriff of this County to take, safely convey, and deliver efendant to the Director, Institutional Division, TDCJ. The Court 

ORDERS Defendant to be confined for the period and in manner indicated above. The Court ORDE.RS Defendant remanded to the 

custody of the Sheriff of this county until the Sheriff can ey the directions of this sentence .. The Court ORDERS that upon release 

from confinement, Defendant proceed unmediately to the arris County District Clerk's office. Once there, the Court ORDERS 

Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any rem · · g unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court 

above. , 0 County Jail-Confinement I Confinement in Lie. or Payznent. The Court ORDERS Defendant immediately committed to 

the custody of the Sheriff' of Harris County, Texas on ~ date the sentence is to commence. Defendant shall be confined in the 

Harris County Jail for the period indicated above. The urt c;JRDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant shall 

proceed immediately to the Harris County District Cle k's o~ce. Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make 

an·angements to pay, any remainiilg unpaid fines, cow·tl csts, arid restitution as ordered by the Court above. 

0 Fine Only Payment. The punishment assessed agai st Defendant is for a FINE ONLY. The Court ORDERS Defendant to proceed 

immediately to the Office ofth.e Harris County . One there,( the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay or make arrangements to pay 

all fines and court costs as ordered by the Court in this ca se. ' · 

Execution I Sus ension of Sen ce select ; · 

IZI The Court ORDERS Defendant's sentence EXECUTED. 

0 The Court ORDERS Defendant's sentence of confineme t SUSPENDED. The Court ORDERS Defendant placed on community 

supervision for the adjudged period (above) so long as D ndantiabides by and does not violate the terms and conditions of 

community supervision. The order setting forth the te and conditions of Cl)mmunity supervision is incorporated into this 

judgment by reference. · . 

The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credi noted 'above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated. 

Furthermore, the foil wing special findings or orders apply: 

Signed and entered on 10/28/13 

...,. 

Q) Notice of Appeal Filed: 10/28/1993 

~ 

~ Mandate Received: 06/28/1995_ Type o£Maodate:AFFI 

\0 

CE- 1sr COURT OF APPEALS 

co 

~ After Mandate Received. Sentence to Begin Date is: 10/28/1993 

-:£ Jail Credit: 232 DAYS CREDIT , , l \0 ! 

~ I I 1 i:l Def. Received on ____________ at_ AM !0 PM 

~ ! 8 By: ---------------- Deputy Sh ritTofJfarris County 

0 

Cl 

' : F-~~~}Jydlll}"~~· ;• . ' 

Right Thumbprint 

LCBU: __ _ ENIKR18: __ _ 
CAUSE No.659156 

IN RE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE 

Relator, 

IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT 

v. § 

MARIA T. (TERRI) JACKSON, § 

339TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

Respondent. 

OF 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

WRIT .OF MANDAMUS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT' OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

NOW COMES, Arthur David Lowe, [herein referred to as Relator], 

and submits this 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF MANDAMUS'.Seeking for this Honorable Court to tompel the 339th District Court 

Judge presiding the Honorable 'Maria T. (TerriJ~ Jackson. To Orally Pronounce Relator's Sentence in His Presence, and show the 

Court the fOllowing: 

I 

JURISDICTION 

This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, has jurisdiction over 

the Pronouncement of sentence that occurs after an adjudiciation· 

of guilt had been d~ferred. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

42.03, §S(b) •. The trial C6urt MUST pronuonce a Defendant's Sentence Ora~ly ~in His presence. S~e Taylor v. Statet 131 s.w. 3d 

497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(citing TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

1 

!"· .,~wm'.i.!·,·.;·' ,. .... ~. ""'"' -, ·::c;:;...,,<~"-~1t>,:·:5,,r~t?:J';k~~7,~.~. ~.- .. .<:;:~;: A~CL,·. ~: . . ~- !-. ' 
art~ 42.03, §I(a)(Vernon 2006). 

II 

R~lator ("Lowe"), filed a 'MOTION' entitled •.. 'MOTION REFORMATION AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING JUDGMENT.' On [April 21, 2014], the 

trial Court [GRANTED], the 'Motion' and roRDERED' ['NUNC. PRO 

TUNC'], hearing and 'ORDERED' the 'CORRECTION' of Relator's 

['JUDGMENT/AND SENTENCE']. To conform with the Jury's Actual 

Verdict on the 'SPECIAL ISSUE'. See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04 

(b) former and (d) of the current: (Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014) ;Huges v. State, 493 s.w~ 2d 166~ 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)("A judgment may be reformed so as to show the offense of which the accu~ 

sed ~as found guilty by the court or jury"). The trial Court in 

the instant case 'ORDERED' 'NUNC PRO TUNC', hearing and 'CORRECTED' Relator's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'_ from the Original trial 

Court's egregious entry in the 'Judgment And Sentenc' of ['1ST 

DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING'. See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.32(a) 

[First Degree punishment le~el ... "no more than 'LIFE' or any term 

not more than 99-years .•. nor than 5-years] Id. See also TEX.PENAL 

CODE. ANN. 20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014);Wi11iams v. 

State, 851 s.w. 2d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). However, the trial 

Court's actions Ord~r~d ~CORRECTION' of Relator's 'JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE' [TO] [2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDGANPPING-RELEASE VICTIM 

IN A SAFE PLACE]~ WhiCh if proved by the preponderance of the 

evidence, is a Second Degree Felony Offense. See TEX.PENAL CODE 

3 

. . ~ . 

f'~.:.''?~>-·;~1·~-". ~1 '·•"'i' ·~·;].: -<')~; ry·~~!~:.;:~·.·: ... ~·y:- ·.:.;.;.?~::~~:}~?;!{~:·? · .. 
ANN. §20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014);Se'e also TEX.PENAL 

CODE ANN~ §12.33{a)(Vernon 1993 & Supp. 2014)[Second Degree punish~ 

men t level. .. "no less than 2-year ... nor more tha 20-years] I d. 

IV 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate (1) 'that no other remedy at law. exists, and (2) 'that under 

the law and facts relevant to the case, the act sought to be<compelled is purely ministerial.' .See In re Rodriques, 77 s.w. 3d 

459, 460 (Tex. App.-Corpus christi 2002 orig. proceeding). "An 

act is ministerial if it does invole the execise of any discretion. Id. (quoting State ex rei Hill v. Court of Criminal 

Appeals Fifth Dist., 34 s.w. 3d 924, 927 (tex. Cri~. App. 2001)). 

It must also be "clear and indisputable" that the relator has an 

absolute right to relief sought. Id. Aministratiar.act is one 

that according to law, must be performed with certainity with 

certainity it does not require the execise of judgment of judicial 

discretion. Id. 

v 

Relator, filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; §4(a,)(l)(Vernon 

2014). Request for the trial Court to pronounce the Sentence Relator is expected to have to serve orally pronounce in Relatot's 

presence. Article 42.03,§l(a)(vernon). The Stahe's Assistant Dis4 

~ ! .• 

~· ~~ :' . . ' j .._, 

• 1' .• 
trict Attorney, filed •state's Proposed Findings of Facts and 

Conlusions of Law and Orders' the trial Court [A]dopted the 

'State's Answer and 'Prposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions 

Of law and Orders'. As its {OJwn. There effectively improperly 

[DISMISSED], relator's Application as a subsequesnt Ap~lication 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court of Criminal Appeals, final 

Disposition On [October 8, 2014]--[DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER]. 

Being ... NOTED ... that the initial Abplication fot:Writ of habeas 

Corpus, this Court [DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER}, On [December 

18, 2013]. The trial Court [GRANTED], Relator's [MOTION], On 

[Aptil 21, 2014]. The trial Court's acti6rts in Granting R~lator's 

'MOTION' was Four (4)-Months after the Final Disposition of Relator's First Application for Writ Of habeas Corpus. [DENIED 

WRITOUT WRITTEN ORDER], On [Decembercl8, 2013]. See 659156~A~-

659156~8~-~hd WR-25,679-17. 

VI 

Relator, filed a [MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC]. Requested the trial 

Court to Pronounce the sentence in Relator's presence. Pursuant to 

TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.o art. 42.03, §l(a.}(Vernon Supp. 2014). 

Howevert Relator, attempted to collect information concerning the 

disposition of the 'MOTIONNUNC PRO TUNC'. By sending a missive to 

the Hatt±s County• District Clerk's.Office. The Disttict Clerk's 

Office., cited Relator in accordance with TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 

552.028(a}(1}(2). refused to provide Relator with any infOrmation 

5 
concerning the status of the 'MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC'. But because 

the:Harris county citation. In refusing to provided Relator with 

any information. Being mindful Relator is incarcerated at the 

Hughes Unit. (TDCJ), Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Instiutional Division. Under the circumstances relator has taken every 

available means to Him~_To.g~t thertrial Court to Pronounce the 

[R]e-sentence .. irr Relator's presence. pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. 

PROC. ANN. art. 42.03,. §I(a)(Yernon 2014). Iri the instant case, 

the trial Court is refusing to Prbnounce Relator's Sentence in Relator's Presence. In violation of Relator~s Due Process of Law. 

See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.04 (Vernon 1989)~ and in Violation pf Statutory provisions. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.42.-

03, §I(a)(Yerno~ supp. 2014)[Sentence shall be Pronounce in the 

defendant's presence];See also Marshall v. State, 864 s.w. 2d 142 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991);Mi11 v. State, 848 s.w. 2d 878 (Tex. App.-

Houston [1st Dist] 1993);Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App.-

Da11as 1998)("Defendant is entitled to have the sentence, including the assessment of any fine pronounced in his presence"):Sanchez v. State, 228 s.w. 3d 85 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2006)("Sentence in a 

felony case MUST be pronounced in the defendant's presence"). Thus, 

it being settled in Iaw ... "there is no fixed or fixible £orm to use 

for a sentence, the one mandatory, being that the.sentence be pron~unced in the defendant's presence)"'See Garb v. State, 234 s.w. 

2d 869 (tex. Crim. App. 1936). 

In Small Y.State, 38 S.W. 789, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)(stat6 
ing that an improper pronouncement of sentence is akin to n6 pronouncement of sentence at all; See also Papakostas v. State, 145 

s.w~ 3d 723~ 726-27 (Tex. App~~corpus Christi 2004, no pet). 

In reaching this conclusion, In:'McClinton V. State,_ this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, held that ... "It is well established that a trial Court's Oral Pronouncement of Sentence in open 

Court is the Sentence imposed. The wriitten judgment or a docket 

entty is merely the written ~ec}aration and embodiment of the Oral 

prbnouncement. Ex patte Madding, 70 s.w. 3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2002);Coffey v. State, 979 s.w. 2d 326, 328). As the Court 

of Criminal Appeals, recently, explain~d:: 

"The rationale for that rule is that the imposition 

of sentence is the crucial mom~nt when all parties 

are physiea11y presnet at sentencing hearing and able 

to hear and respondGtO the imposition of sentence. 

Once he leaves the court-room, the defendant begins 

serving the sentence. Ex parte Madding, 70 s.w. 2d 

at 135. Th~s. a trial Court does not have the Statutciry authority to impose one:sentence·or~lly to the 

defendant and then at some later date, enter a different, greater or !esse~ sentence, in his presence, 

in the written judgment outside•the deEendant's or 

State's presence. See Id at 136. Such a system would 

create hovoc; a trial Court judge could orally pronounce sentence in open court while the defendant and 

his family and friends and pos~ibl~ victim ~~~ily and 

friends,_ and the prosecutor are all present to pbj~ct,. 

A defendant who thought he was serve a ten year sentence would even~a11y discover that instend, his sen7 
tence has been modified to twelve years, or the State 

would e~entually discover that the sentence been modified to ten years., such a system would be unfair to 

both parties and to socity at. large. such would inject 

both parties andibtolerable le~el of uncertainity into 

the sentence from becoming 0 final 0 until the trial Court'; 

plenary authority had expired.n 

A trial Court has the inherent authorit¥ to alter, modify, or ~acate its ruling, but it does not have the inherent authority to alter, modify 6r vacate a sentence"tmposed in open court without Statutory authorization and without the presence of the parties. See 

121 s.w. 3d 768, 770-771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 

VII 

with the foregoing in mind, as previously demonstrate, and based 

oh the records, unequivocally shows that the trial Court [GRANTED] 

Relator's [MOTION], ~hd~~ORDERED' hearing 'NUNC PRO TUNC' and fur~ 

ther 'ORDERED' the 'CORRECTION' of Relator's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' 

from [1ST DEGREE AGGRAV~TED KIDNAPPING] [TOl [2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED 

KIDNAPPING-RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PEACE]. P~Dsuant to TEX.PENAL 

CODE ANN. §20.04(b) or (d)(Vernon 1993 & Supp~ 2014); See also Starr 

v. state, 126 s.w~ 3d 647, 658 n *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 

2004)(citing Williams v. St~he, 851 s.w. 2d 282, 287 (Tex. Crim. App 

1993). 

However, in the instant case, the trial Court is refusing to Ora+ 

lly pronounce the [R]e-sentence~tn Relat~r's presence. In accordahce 

8 
withhTEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, §l(a)(Vern<i>n Supp. 2014). 

This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, has held ih~~i~±lar 

situate(s), ha~ C6nditionally Granted Maridamus Relief, to afford 

the trial Court ~o cpmply with st~tutbry provisions, TEX.CODE CRIM. 

PROC. ANN. art, 42.03, §l(a)(Vernon Supp. 2014). To Orally Pronounce 

the Sentence. in Relator's presence. See In re Risley, 190 s.w. 3d 

854 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006)("Mandamus lies to compel the trial 

court to impose sentence ig the presence of the defendant")~ 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Relator's ["Lbwe"J, prays this 

Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals, cohsider each and every point 

raised herein, and as a matter of law. _Take the appropriate actions 

under the circumstances, in this case, as the law and justice requires. 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE 

Respectfully Submitted 

· ();;H;L!I} d&.J.L 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750 

HUGHES UNIT. 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 

I, Arthur David Lowe, being the Relator, herein,the 'Motion for 

Leave To File Writ Of Mandamus,' I SWEAR UNDER PENLTY OF PERJURY, 

that the st~tement made herein and the records are ALL TRUE and 

CORRECT, and can be verified, by its entitled custodian of the rei,.:\.. ... :..·: .• ::.1 

9 
cords, and this Hono~able Court of Crimnal Appeals, also On July 

28, 2014, Ordered the records supplementaled to the (CCA), ~lerk's 

official r~cords. See WR-25,679-15, ... *[NOT~CE]* JUEY 28, 2014. 

relator further atkno.wledges : .:. : , t.ha-t-, a Copy of the same 11 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF MANDAMUS'. has b~en ~·livered by u. 

S. Mail>Postal;Service to:CHRIS DANIEL, HARRIS COUNTY, DISTRICT 

CLERK'S, P.O. BOX 4651, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651. to file and process a copy to the 339th District Court the Honorable presiding judge Maria T. (Terri) Jackson. 

On this 10 , day of ___ Ju .....;.._ LJ ___ _ ,2o15. 

IO 

Respectfully Submitted 

();dJzW) c:lauG . . ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750 

HUGHES UNIT. 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 
I ,., :· 

--· ... .· CaSl' .\'11 •.. CPJ5?!\.:?.U?.-<O: 

(I he(. kn; Ol til>.: COllVIC\tllg ~:('lii'i Will ilil 1111.'• iiliL: lio l 

IN THE COUlrl' OF.t'Hi:\11\AL ,\!'PEALS (IF n::.\.\S 

APPIJC::\'1'10:\' FOil:\\\ HIT OF .IL\BL\S COR!•t:~ 

SEE!..: lNG RCUEF FRO\l H\At. l'FLO'\Y U l\\ HTI(l"'\ 

I :NI>I:'.I< CClOE OF..CI<IiVll:'\.-\L PIH)CEIHiRE. i\ RTJCLI: 11.07 

.DATEO.FBIRTH: December 9, 1960 

I I) This applicniinn cnnn~rns (ch•:ck idl tb:ti appl:'): 

~] a r.onvidion 

[J 

rJ . iinw credit 

tn:1nd~ttory sup<:rvision 

nut-ol'-lillll' ;lppcalor·rwttiiuu l'or 

tl isrn•1 itonar~' rn·iew 

(2) \\'hat disirid tourt t:ntert•(l the jll(lglltl'ill •>f IIH· ~nnvicHon ~-~~~~"ani reli1·1' from'.' 

(lm:ludc- til:: ~.:t)llfl l'lurnbc:r and county. 1 

_J_3 9th Dis t r i c .LS:_o u r t , H a r r is · Co u h t,_y_ 1 __ .:~:.ei.~E-.§ ______ ~ 

(3) What was the case nnmlll·r in lht ll'iall·oun·:> 

Cause No. 659156 ,..:;__;:_.;:_...:,_,::_:__:,,..;_~::_:::_---·-·-----·----

(4) Wha!· was thl' tHtll1c nf' the trial jutlg~-'? 

M~ria T. (Terri) Jackson 

RECE1VED-tN----

POSTTR\AL 

DlSTR\CT CLERK oFFtCE 

JUL 2 9 lU14 

11mO:= ~ 11orrla county, T 0 ILB5 - BY- oaputy · 

f~.C\ (!} . J .. ;. I .. ! 

:00002 
,'£ ... 

.. -· '. 

(5) \\ erL· you n:·pr(·seukd hy wunsl'l'.' H ~·cs, pro1 ide ihl· anome~··s nanw: 

October 28, 1993 

~o Counts, Sepa~ate-Indictments-charges~same-episode --·---------·~---·-~---... -·-·-·---------.. ----·--------~~---~-·-... -·-·~--·-··-----·-····-· 

(:'\) If you IWt"l' ~enH:nn~cl nn mur<: thlln Olll' counr of an illdinmnll in rht: sam(· t.'tmri a! 

I he s;tnw r.inH:, what •:IJtHJis W(·r·e )·flu t:OII\'idctl of and wilar w;~•; !he Sl'llll'm·L· iu <::It'll 

l'IIIJ Ill';' 

['l j!llilty-pbt har:.~ain 

[] uo/o COilll!ll~l:.ndno (\lflll:~l 

If you l~ntcrcd diiTt:n:nl: pl<:asto tounts in :-1 rnulti-counl itttli<'IIIH'ut. pltatS\~ n:_pii1in: 

·same:'Plea 1~ e;;ich Indictment [NOT GUILTY]. 

,-~ . : .... ! nn.rury ~ury ff•r guilt :111d puni.sliuJi:HI 

LJ jur~- for ~;uilt, judgt· for punishrntn~ 
(II.) J>irl yuu h~stify at lri;ll'? If yt•s. ai Willi I phaliL' uftht! fri:.ll rlid ynu 11'\lif_v'! 

( 12) 

( IJ) 

:·; .vou ~lppi:al from I he ,iudgn1cllf ~'.f conrittion'.' 

1~1 }l'~ : .....J no · 

(A) What court of apJH::.lls did you appt~iJI to'! First Court Appeals 

(B) \.\'hat was the tftsc numhcr'! 01-93-00987-CR __ ,_ 

(C) Wel'l! ~·nu n·rn~'sl:ni<·.d hy l.'llllltsd un app<:al'? lfyts, JH'(I\'idr· fhi.'. allnrrH·y'.\ 

II :Jill\:: 

Nancy Howe Boler 

(D) '\'hat wa!ll:hl' d<:cision r.Uid the d~1h: of the dt!dsirm'? Affirmed/J~nua~y 19, 1995 

D/).''.111 fili: a pttiti•ln for discrdior::•;ry ~~·viL·w in the Court: <:•f CrimiuaJ Appl'al<" . 

(; .''t.S L.-' lllt · 

H ~·uu tlid fill· ;i pdition for dist-rt:lionary rt\·icw, answer the fr•llowing qucsr.ious: 

(A) Whai w:1s rhc l~ast• numht~r'! 

(14) . llnvr. you rm~viousl,r lilcJ an applk:.HiOJI for a writ ofhabcfl\ t'Orpu~ 11111ic;- o\rlick: 

''/.~of tile Tcx;ts C(I(Jto uf Crimiual .. ,l'ron·dun: challcn:,:ing this ('flfll'ictioJt'.' 

v5 ~~ ~ L..J rw 

Jf you answered ycl., <IIISI\'l~r rhc fvllo\\'ing qu(•Stions: 

(A) What. was the Court' uf Cl'iminal ApJil'als' writ numtm·'! WR-25' 6'79-13 

Rt'V. Ill il.:!/ I :J 
:· • 

(l.l) Whal was lh(· cl('cisiun und tlw dul(: of the tltdsinn':' Q.ENIEQ ..N/...Q...W.R.I.T..T:.ORDER 

c]anuary 8, 2014 

(CI Ple~tse idcut.il)• t.hc. n·:-1son that. rhe currtni dairus ~q·n~ nor pn:~Pilit•d aud ('lllfld 

nn1 h;t\·t~ bc•~n pr('S('IIft•d un your pn~,·iuw• appliL·.~IIini::-· 

Sentence On MQ.ti.QD..-Afi_e.r..._P.is.p.o..si..t.i.o.n_o_t._ .. i.n.t.i.aL.Applicat ion ( s) 1 On Ord..e.r_fi.qnJ;: _ __Ej;:_Q.....Zunc.-.H.e.a.d ng Ap:r::.il_21 1 2014. 

The Final· Disposition ~anuary_Jir._~Q.l-9_;_ _______ _ 

. 1 l(i) If .vou arc p:·cscming a tlairn for tinw rn•dit, han: ~'Ou t~xhnusn:d ~·nur . 

udininistrative n:n•c•lics hy pn·senling .\'tlfll' cluim fo l.ft<' riuw ('n:llit n~solufion 

system of lht· T(•xas [)('.Jlllrtmrnl uf Criminal .Juslict~? (I' his rcquinmcnt. applits ru 

auy fiunl felon~· l'.onvicrion, includinc str11i: jail fd<lllirsi 

(:\) \\'hat datr: clid you J1n~scut: the daim'! ·***N/A*****•*******•  

(B) l>id you rN·dH· it dedsi.,n and, if yes. whM W)IS the· d:llc of illc dl'l'isi!ln~· 

** ***********~*•**~******•*************•*~ 

If ynu answt:rtd no. pleasl' t:xplain wh~· )'fiiJ han: U(Jf !Wimtilh:d ~'OIIr daim: 

Although*Error TWO* is based On~a Time-Issue. Its not 

an.;applicable issue regarding 'I'ime-Credit(s) •.......... 

:I 

00005 
----------------------·-------····---···--··-·---···---·········-··· 

(17) Be~inrring un pag(~ 6, slate concisely cnry ll~gnl ground f••r yuur daim dlllt you an: 

lwing unlawfully rcstn•incd. and thlm briL·lly sumrnariu: iht• f:H:t~ suppurting cad1 

ground. y,_)u must pn,scnj cad1 ground uu.thc ft1n11 applicatiun :!llcl a hrid. 

summ:iry of Ow facts. ~/'your grmmds (fnd brit!f'siiiiiiiHII:F ofrlu•.fiu:is Jwve not heel! 

rm•sente.d Ollt/I{~.Jin;m applicutiou, the Com:! H•if!Jwt ('OIIsid.:r)·our grounds. 

If ynu have mon~ th.an four ground!i, uSl' png~·s I .J und 15 of t.ht• form, which ~ oo 

nmy copy as man:· times as nccckd to gin· yon :1 scp:trate pag(: f11r ~~ad1 g,rou JHI. with 

each gruund numhl•n:tl in siHJIIl'ncc. The n~citaliiHI urthc: f:~t·rs .~uppMting l!:idl 

~round must"'~ nn longer th:lni!H: two pil~es tu·,ovided f'c"· tlw :;rou11d in rlu: form. 

You IJI:Jy includt' wHh lht! form a rncnwr:1ndum of Ia\\' if ~ou waui 10 prl·st•nllt:!!,<l! 

authorit·it's, bul the Coun will 11m consider groulllhfur rdid ~t·t our iu a 

nH:morandum nflaw ttwt Wt'rc not raistll ~HI !he form. Till~ rililliOilS aud <ir:,:um.:nt 

nrus·t he in ;1 rnenwnllldum t·hal rOillj'Jiit·s with Trxa.o; Hulc of Appdlaic PnH·,·durt Ti · 

and d•H:s nott~.xcct•d 15,1100 words if CIHllpiiTt'f'-gt·nt~ral\·d nr 51i r•a';!tS if not. lfynu 

lii'L' dl:tllt:nging tlw rali!IHyor yuur <:on\'il:tion. ph•ast• indiHk a sunn11ar~' of rhe fans 

JH:r1aining w ynur niT('liSt'. ancl lri<rl in _\'IIIII' rn~nHH'alHirrm. 
c;rWU!\W I );\E: 

. . THE--.1:BJAL COURT--ERRED IN HOLDING AN HEARING ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT 

CORRECTION 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' IN APPLICANT"S ABSENCE. 

FACTS SUl'PORTI:'JGGHOUND OSE: 

THE 'l'RIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING A HEARING, PRONOUNCEMENT 

OF JUDG~ENT AND SENTENCE, IN ITS ORDER~ CORRECTED THE RE-

...:..C.ORILT..O____BEFLECT 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE. -------·.,----------------···-·w------___,_--.,.,,, ____ ,, ____ , _____ _,_, ____________ ,, 

~TIM IN A SAFE PLACE. THE HEARING AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF 

_J..IffiG~ _ _KNTAND SENTENCE, , '1'0 ·CONFORM TO THE· JURY • S VERDICT ON --·-.. ·----~---·---··-···-·--.. -·--······--·--------·--.. -----~-··· 

_ _s_p,E.crA_L;£ SSUE- ORDERED AN ORAL PRONOUNCEMEN;r 'NUNC PRO TUNC' 

CORRECTIONJ>OF APPLICAN1.' 'S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, REDUCED THE 

ENTRY INTO THE JUDGMENT AND .. SEN'l'ENCE 1ST DEGREE AGGRAVATED ------------

KIDNAPPING. CORRECTED THE RECORDS TO. READ 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING, HOWEVER, THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT CONFLECT 

WI~H THE WRITTEN _______ JUDGMENT AND SEN~ENCE. THE COUR'l' IN ITS .;. ______ . --------------------- -----

ORDER CORRECTED THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE TO 2ND DEGREE FE-

-·-----·--~~··········· 

LONY OFFENSE, WHICH IS A LESS DEGREE ·.OF PUNISHMENT AS A MA'l'-

Rn. Oiil'-tf!..\ 

:00007 - ..•. '--~-'""'-~-... __ ~---
·' 

..T.ER_QJ.':._.J..AW ._ THE JUD_g~E~T R~~LECTS A HARSHER PUNISHMENT AND 

SENTENCE "'LIFE' AS NO CORRECTION MADE, REFLECT 1ST DEGREE ----------·-----------------

FELONY OFFENSE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT, ···--·---·-·-····~----."--.---···----·-

RATHER THAN AS A MATTER OF LAW, 2ND DEGREE 2-YEARS NO MORE 

THAN 20-YEARS SUCH VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAW APPLICANT 

BEING ENTITLED TO ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE IN HIS -----·------··---·--·-·-·····--· 

PRESENTS,.AT·"THE HEARING. 

·-------------·---·--··~----·-··········-··- ... ······· ··-··- ...... ·~····----.:.-----------.. ··-· 

--------------------·-··-----···--·-·--·-···-··--··-·--·--··-----... ·-·--·_:_ 

·------------------·--·-·-·····-· 

----------------···----· 

7 

:00006 . -. ·-·· :: -·-~ 
GIH.HJ\D TWO: 

THE CLERK EGREGIOU-SE;LF-ENTRY, IN THE .·JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 

CHANGED APPtiCAN~ [SBD]-SENTENCE BEGIN DATE. 

F.·\CTS SlJl'POIHING GIWUND TWO: 

THE DEPUTY CLERK £GREGIOUS~SELF~ENTRY, IN THE JUDGMENT 

CHANGED AP~LICANT'S [SBD]--SENTENCE BEGIN DATE, AND TRANS~ ·-----------------·-·-···· 

MITTED, CHANGE TO APPLICANT'S [S6D], TO (TDCJ-10), RECORDS. ---------------------. ---·· 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL.DIVISION 

CLASSIFICATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. 

·----·---··-·--·-----···-·---·--·····----·-

:00009 ---- -.•... -·-- \.- ~ ... . f - .,. -
. .. . ~ 

---------" 

_________ , --~··------- .. H~ .. - ··-···---------------··· 

·····--------------------------------------

------.--------
FACTS SUI'PORTI;'\C (;I~OUND THREE: 

------------'-·-·-·-·· --------------

----------------------···---··-··-·---·---

--------.....,.------------··--------· 

------------

--------:-··--------· 

10 

: 00!011 .. 
____ , ______ '---------·--·-~·---w 

·---~---....,....----------·---------·-·-·-·---·-···---· 

-·-----·-·--------·-------

-~----------------
F.-\CTS Sl.ii'I'IH<TING CHOUND H.HH~: 

-------:---·--------------------------·--· 

12 

:00013 
! .. 

:· 

Re''. o 1 n :li! ~~ 
F,.\CTS St.ii'POI<TL\'G GHOHi\'D: 

---------------------------·-··----·--······-·-··· 

---~---····---·--·----·---·-····--·----··· .. -·--.. ···-·------·--------

------------------------·----------·---·---·-· 

.Rev. D I : I ~/I -i 

: 00015· 
··----------------- ---------·-··--·-------·----···· 

·----------------------------------···------------· 

·---------·---------------------~------------

IS 
__ __. DI'OT,CE 

OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE 

Under both Federal law (28 U.S.C § 1746) and State law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies 

Code,§ 132.001-132.003), offenders incarcerated in Texas may use an unsworn declaration under 

penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit 

sworn before a Notary Public. An example of a blank unsworn declaration is as follows: 

"I J\ ll:l H U fl. L- 0 lq ~ (insert offender name and TDCJ number), being 

presently incarcerated in --re-~ f\ S D Grf'rlt'; MiiJt l-4)1?.tl.E:"<.1UU · (insert TDCJ unit 

name), in C.Of1.Vtl.L- County; Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on __ \T~U.::::..c___:Y __ Z--=3:::___ ____ , 20 l r. 

(Offender's Signature) 

In a request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declaration is 

insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided. 

NOTICE 

NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL 

Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided 

necessitating Notary Public service. However, you may proceed with an Unsworn Declaration. 

(Notary Public's Signature) (Date) 

'"**~······~··***************************************************************** OATH BEFOf~E A NOTAHY PCBLIC . . . - . 

STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF 

. ·---------·-·-·-;·-·--·--·-------· ----------········---------' being duly ~wom. under nath Sii\'S: ··1 :lin th~~ fippJiCalll f petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the l'Orl!Cnls of the above. 

;tppi_IL'lli'~iln l(tr f:! writ of'.habt::aS Corrus <111<1, ilCCorcJing ({1 rny }1dicf. th(: filCIS .~\:Jil:d i11 iiW 

appliC(illf!ll HI'(' ll'liC... . 

. l /JU/)rj" ::·_tit:ti2 ---------- --~- .. .......... ... . .. ····· .. ::,,gn;tturc of Appi icMH ' !'~:·1 itioner ,_,:i!'l'il' ••nt~ -, 

/ 

SI.•BSC:RlBED :\Nl) SWORN TO BEFORC \:IF TfiiS .. ?:.~.D.\ y OF JUL if .. ,., I '1 ""'i"'"'"""'"""'"'"""'' • •• 1. ......... · 

-·----~--~-.. -· - ····-··-·-····-··--·- -·-· Signalurc of !'iorary i'ubiic:·-·-----

16 

" 

:00017 
.. 

PETITIONER'S 1\'FOit\1 \Ti(}\ 

l'c i it i Ol'll' r · s fifii,-1 \~d n:-1! n t': ...................................... ..... .............. .. ............................................................ . 

Sllnc inu· number. il'::ppi!\:Hbi<.~: _ .............................................................................. .. 

Telephone: .......................... ___________________________ _ 

Fa~: : ·-----------------·----.... -.... -------------·-··---·-------··--- ................................. -

JS.\'IATCS DECL.-\RAJOIO•\ 

.. c ........ ~«&i! .. td!l_._sj ~---····--·-------·--··-·---- Sigll:'ilUI'C of i\pplil~:lll! i Pctirioner {cirdr.: c•nc) 

17 

F:cv. Ol'l4.'J4 

:00016 
w j{j 

.. 

I' £T Lfl O.t'i LR 'S .I:"..; FOR :VI ATI 0:\' 

Pt·Litio.ncr's prinit:d flHITit:: .AR~~UR DA!ID LOWE-; JR. !_669750 

;\(h:li'cs~.: HUGHES UNIT. 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 -~--------------· 

CONTACT-NUMBER ••• 832-646-4302 --------···········-··-··-··-·-·-····· 

hi\: __ .,.--__________ _;__ 

· ..... _().;f;tlJ@ __ (/)~---···-··-···················-

. Jl' ,, 

SigncHun: ,)r P\;·ti:iPncr 

···•'·''" ..... :.0.0019 
___________ .,· 

CAUSE. No.659I56-B=~ 

ARTHUR DAV!D LOWE 

Applicant, 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Reilipendent. 

APPLICANT IN THE 339TH MOTION. DISTRICT ORALLY 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

f:.._.~_:_~ •. -.1.AR':PBIUR DAVID LOWE #66 97 50 

HUGHES UNIT. 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 

.. ; ~--- . . .. ,. -- ......,. -· _._ ~ ~ --· -··. .... - - .... - ·_ # .:.: '.o: __ • ~-~~··· --~-:....: -- ~-.-.:-.... - .... -.---.:._-; .... - ....... - ••. 
·.• 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................ :~ . :··. i 

NAMES OF INTERESTED PARTIES .................................... i i 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... . iii-v 

SU.MMARY OF THE CASE See [APPLICATION FORM] ...................... 5 

OBJECTION AND CONSTITUil?IONAL AN-D STATUTORiY PROVISION INVOLVED .. vi \ . 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...... ~················-2 

GROUND OF ERROR ONE .......................................... 1-13 

ISSUE FOR REVIEW--ERROR ONE 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING A HEARING, PRONOUNCEMENT 

OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, IN ITS, ORDER CORRECTED THE RECORD 

TO REFLECT 2nd DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN 

A SAFE PLACE. THE HEARING AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE, TO CONFORM.TO THE JURY'S VERDICT ON SPECIAL ISSUE. 

ORDERED AN ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT 'NUNC PRO TUNC' CORRECTION OF 

APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE,· REDUCED: THE ENTRY INTO THE 

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 1ST DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. CORRECTED THE RECORDS TO READ 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING, 

HOWEVER, THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT CONFLiiCTS WITH THE WRITTEN 

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE- THE COURT IN ITS ORDER CORRECTED THE 

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE TO 2ND DEGREE FEriiONY OFFENSE, WHICH IS 

A LESS DiEGREE OF PUNISHMENT 1 AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE JUDGI'IEN.T 

REFLECTS A HARSHER PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCE 'LIFE' AS NO COR-· 

RECTION MADE, REFLECT 1ST DEGREE FELONY OF ASSESSMENT OF THE 

MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT, RATHER THEN AS A MATTER OF LAW, 2ND DEGREE 

2-YEARS NO MORE THAN 20-YEARS SUCH VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAN 

APPLICANT BEING ENTITLED TO ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE IN 

HIS PRESENTS, AT THE HEARING 

GROUND OF ERROR--TWO ........................................ 13-18 

ISSUE FOR REVIEW--ERROR 

THE DEPUTY CLERK EGREGIOUS~SELF ENTRY, IN THE JUDGMENT--

CHANGED APPLICANT'S [ SBD] --SENTENCE BEGIN DATE, AND 'TRANSMITTED, CHANGE TO APPLICAINIT'S [SBD], TO (TDCJ-ID), RECORDS. TEXAS 

~ DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION--CLASSIFICATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. 

CONCLUSION OF PRAYER ........................................... 18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................... 18-19 

APPEND I X-COPIES --=LISTED ....................................... : . ..-19 

i 

:00021 
.-, 

NAMES OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Pursuant to TEX.R~ APP. PROC. Rule 38.l(a), Applicant Certifies 

that the following is a List of the 'Names and Interested Parties' 

to the Judgment and Sentence. sirice this is a case proceediling regrding an Application for Writ of Habaes Corpus of a 'NUNC PRO TUNC' 

proceeding in a Felohy Conviction. Under TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 11~07. See also TEX-CODE CIM. PROC. ANN. ~rt. 42.03(a), sec. 1 

(Vernon 2014). The dnly parties are [Applicant], The State of Texas, 

its Repesentative(s), Office of the Harris County, District Attorney 

Office. The Deputy Clerk 339th Criminal District Court. 

APPLICANT: 

THE STATE OF TEXAS: 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE#669750 

HUGHES UNIT. 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TE~AS 76597 

RE?RESENTATIVE(s) ASSITANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

HARRIS COUNTY, 

201 FANNIN 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 770P2 

DEPUTY DISTRICT CLERK 339TH COURT: L. GUEVARA, DEPUTY CLERK 

339TH DISTRICT CLE~K 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

HONORABLE JUDGE 339TH DISTRICT-COURT~- -MARIA T. (TERRI) JACKSO~ 

ii 

.. : 00022· 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES·:: PAGES 

Beasley V. State, 

718 S.W. 2d 304 (Tex. App.-Amerillo [7th Dist] 1995) ........ 15 

Brecheisen V. State, . 958 S.W. 2d 490 (Tex. App.-Fo~t Worth 1997) ... ~ ............. 15 

Brecheisen V. State, . 4 S.W. 3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ........................ 16 

Buchana V. State, 

881 s.w. 2d 376 (Tex. :App.-Housto.n [1 Dist], 1994) ........... 7 

911 S.W. 2d 11, On remand WL 640704,_.~. ~--··· ....... ~ ....... ] 

petition for discretionary review · 

Dickson V. State, 

988 S .w. 2d at 268 ....... · ... _.-.-.· .............................. 7 

Hughes V. State,. 

493 S.W. 2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.'1973) ....................... 4 

Johnson V. State, 

233 s.w. 3d 420 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007) ................. 14 

Jones v. State, 

7~5 s.w. 2d at 201 ................................. : ......... 7 

Kanya v. State, 

795 s.w. 2d 36 (Tex. App.-Houston [lst dist] 1990).: ........ 16 

State ex rei. Latty V. Owns, 

907 s.w. 2d 484 (Tex.1995.) ........................... -.......... 15 

~arte Lemke, 

13 s.w. 3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ........................ 5 

Ex parte Madding, 

70 S.W. 3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ....................... 10 

Marshall v. State, 

860 s.w. 2d 142 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet) ..... -........ 10 

Mitchell v. State, 

942 s.w. 2d 170 (Tex. App.-Amerillo, 1997)~--········· ...... 10 

Ex earte Phillip, . 

176 S.W. 3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) .................... ~.10 

iii 

iQ> ?'i 
Shaw V .· State, 

539 S.W. 2d 887 (Tex. Cr. App. 1976) ........................ 10 

Smith V. State, 

·IS s·.w. 3d at 298 (Tex. App.-Amerillo, 1997) ................ 10 

Starr V. State, 

126 S.W. 3d 647 (Tex. App.·-Houston [14th Dist], 2004) ........ 8 

State V. Evans, 

817 s.w. 2d 576 (Tex. App.-Waco 1991) ....................... 14 

843 S.W. 2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ......... ~ ............ 14 

State V. Kanpa, . . 795 S.W. 2d 36 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1 1990) ......... 16 

Taylor v. State, 

131 s.w. 3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 200~) ...................... 10 

Thompson V• State, 

108 s.w. 3d 287 (Tex. Crim~ App. 2008) .. ; .................... 7 

Tooke v. State, 

642 S.W. 2d 514 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1 19'82) ........ 14 

Vallez v. State, 

121 S.W. 3d 778 (Tex. App .. -San Antonio, 2000) ............... 10 

Ex parte Vasquez, 

712-·S.W. 2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ...................... 17 

Ex parte Voelkel, 

517 s.w. 2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ...................... 14 

FEDERAL CASES: PAGES 

Bald v. Hale, 

68 U.S. 223. I Wall. 223 (1863) ............................. 11 

Bl~kely v. Washington, 

542 U.S. 2961 124 S .Ct. 2531 (2004) ......................... 11 

_Downey V. United States, 

67 App. D.C. 1921 91 F.3d 223 (1937) ........................ 11 

Landford v. Idaho, 

500 u.s. 1101 126 s.ct. 1723 (1991) ............... ~ ......... 11 

In re Oliver, 

333 U.S. 2571 68 S.Ct. 499 (1948) ........................... 11 

iv 

:00024 t::"~~·;J::;::.:;:'!:.-~~.~.'-1.»:r.~n~_.,.._ __ -· ... -~ .... ----··· ---··---·---·-·· 
Struck v. United States, 

93 S.Ct. 2260 (1973)_ .......................•...•.....•...... 16 

STATUTES: 

TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2014) ...... 2,3 

TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04 (Vernon 1993} ........................ 6 

TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.32 (Vernon Supp. 2014) .................. 6 

TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.33 (Vernon Supp. 2014) .................. 5 

TEX.R. APP. Rule 44.2; ......................................... 16 

TEX.R. APP. P,ROC. 50(b);~ .•..••••.•..••..•...••.•..•... ~ ••••..•.. 3 

FEDERAL STATUTES: 

FED.R. <CRIM. P. 43 ............................................ 11 

) 

v 

.; ......... __ -'. 

...,.. ____ -- -·- ... ···----------. c~.::i:.r.:;:·z-.::~~.::::-.:..'\·~ .. ~-~;\%.~,... ...... ,.. ... --·· ...... ··--.. ·~-"'·-~ 
.. ~ ,• 

-:':".::....·:·.~ ...... ·.-·!;."}:_ 

OBJECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL 

.·AND• 

STATUTORY PROVISON INVOLVED 

Applicant, lodges this Objection to the trial Court's Ordered a 

'Nunc ~ro Tunc' hearing deni~d Applicant's Due Process Rights and 

Due Process of Law, to be present in. Court during a critical Hearing on this matter··t6 the provision of TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 42.03, §l(a). and to .The·' U.S. ·CONST. amend. VI, XXIV; TEX. 

CONST. ait. I, § 10~ In Viblation of'Federal and State Constitut-

' 

ional Rights in Confrontation and Cross-examination.' 

Violation of the United States and Texas.Constitutions by cond~· 

ucting a final hearing without Applicant b~ing present. pursuant to 

Statutory provisions. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, §1 

(a)[Sentence shall be Pronounced in the Defendant's Presence]. 

vi 

. . , '=t"-::."•V.-"' .~.T't•,r,:, ,.,~·.t<Mo;..---~ "..-l>oroo_........_,. -- -

I 

Respectfully Submitted 

ARTHUR 

au-A& 

DAVID a~ LOWE, JR. 

ProSe. T.D.C.J.-ID 

#669750. 
,.. 

CAUSE No. 659156-B 

EX PARTE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE ~ IN THE 339TH DIS.TRICT COURT 

Applicant, 

v. § OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

representative(s). 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT: 

NOW COMES, Arthur David Lo~e, [~ereinaft~r referred to as Applicant and submits the ['SEPARATED MEMORANDUM'], p~rsuant to TEX. 

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN, art. 11.07. In support of this request for 

an Order pursuant to T.EX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03,[Pronouneing:··sentence •] . The court Ordered .a Hearing in 'NUNC PRO TUNC' pro-

· ceeding. On Applicant's 'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping 

Judgment'. And Granted the 'Motion-Nunc Pro Tunc' Ordered hearing· in 

open Cburt and made Oral pronouricement corrected the'JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE', that the Court recorda reflects 2nd Degree Felony-Aggrava ted Kidnapping Relaese vic.tim,.dn a safe place. this hearing and Oral 

Pronouncement to:. correct It he· 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE"., in Applicant's 

ab~ence, such actiohs viblates due proc~s~, in that Applicant is entitle to be present for Oral Pronouncement of ·Sentence correction in 

person, and will show the following: 

[APPLICANT IS BEING UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED) 

GROUND OF ERROR ONE 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING, PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE, IN ITS, ORDER, CORRECTED THE RECORD TO REFLECT 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE. THE HEAR1 

~- -· ··--r.. . . 
ING AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, TO CONFORM TO THE 

JURY'S VERDICT ON SPECIAL ISSUE. ORDERED AN ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT 'NUNCPRO TUNC' CORRECTION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, REDUCED 

THE ENTRY INTO THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 1ST DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPING. CORRECTED THE RECORDS TO READ 2ND DEGREE AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING, HOWEVER, THE ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT CONFLICTS WIT THE WRITTEN JUDG-

~ENT AND SENTENCE. THE COURT IN ITS ORDER CORRECTED THE JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE TO 2ND DEGREE FELONY OFFENSE, WHICH IS A LESS DEGREE PUNISH-. 

AENT, AS A MATTER OF LA~. THE JUDGMENT REFLECTS A HARSHER PUNISHMENT 

-·AND SENTENCE 'LIFE' AS NO CORRECTION MADE, REFLECTS 1ST DEGREE FELONY 

OF ASSESSMENT OF THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT, RATHER THEN AS A MATTER OF 

LAW, 2ND DEGREE2-YEARS NO MORE THAN 20-YEARS SUCH VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAW. APPLICANT BEING ENTITLE TO ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE 

IN HIS PRESENTS, AT THE HEARING. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING 

The records reflects Applicant filed an Application for Writ of 

Habeas corpus, pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 {Vernon Supp. 2013). On October lS1 2013. It was received and filed in 

the Harris county, District Clerk's Office. The Application was aceompanied with numeroGs other Motion~, specifically Applicant's 'MOTION REFORMATION AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING JUDGMENT'. However, the tri~l 

Court disposed of the Habeas Corpus' Application as well as each 'Mo~ 

tion' Applicant d.iscovered that the trial Court Judge was ·not afforded copies of the 'Motion Reformation Aggrava,ted kidnapping Judgment' 

and-.the Attached documents •. No-t being pr-esent-ed -to t-he tr-ial Court. 

Applicant filed a 'Motion For Leave To file Writ Of Mandamus' to the 

Court of Criminal Appeals. And also as a requirement served the Harris 

County, District Clerk with a copy of the 'Motion For Leave To file 

Writ of Mandamus'. Requesting to the Court Of Criminal Appeals, to 

compel the H~rris County, District Court to forward .ALL the related. 

records of the Habeas Corpus Application proceeding. To complete the 

2 
before the Court and to s~rved the same to the Ha~ris County, District Cl~rk. Because pursuant to Tex.R~ App. Proc. SO(b)("the burden 

is on the Ap~licant'to make sure the records are tomp}ete before the 

Court"). However, the Application for Writ of H~baeas Corpus was denied without a written ouder. There after the 'Motion for~Leave to:~fi~e 

gestion for Reconsideration'. also was denied. On January 14, 2014. The 

~~mo0adum Response to ·corresporice'was received by the trial Court 

Obviously the·irial Court Judge was afforded a proper review of the 

'Motion' with the records appended. tri~l Court Granted Applicant's 

'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping Judgment'. The trial Court 

entered an Order On April 21, 2014. Other:•PLEASE ATTACHED A COPY OF 

THE CORRECTED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE. ALSO OUR RECORDS HAVE BEEN COR-

' RECTED TO REFLECT 2ND DEG~EE FELONY-AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING REDEASE;VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE." 

(Emphasis added) 

The record reflects that Applicant [NO-LONGER] convicted of the Felony offense ['First Degree Ag~~av~ted Kidnapping']. This Order refer~ 

red to was after the disposition of the initial Application -for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus' .By Both Cpurts'. ~he trial Court On November 12, 

2013. arnd the court of Criminal Appeals, On January 8, 2014. On April 

14, 2014. The Harris County, Disttict Cl~rk's Office-R~tention Correspondence received Applicant's 'Motion Refp~mation Aggravated Kidnapping 

Judgment'. The trial Court On•. Apri-l 2J,i.o2014i;,~_well after Applicant filed 

the initial Application· for writ of Habeas corpus.~.· 

Article 11.07, §4, permits the consideration of a subs~quent applicatioon for writ of habeas corpus, only under exceptional circumstances: 

~a)'If a subsequent application for writtof habeas corpus is filed 

after f~nal disposition of an initial application challenging the same 

conviction, a court may not consider the metter of or grant relief based 

6ri th~ subsequent applicat1."on, unless, th e application contains 

3 

:00029-
-. 

suffi~ient specific facts establishing that: 

(!)'The current claims and issues have not been and could not 

been presented previously in a original application or in a previous considered application filed under this article because the 

factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date 

applicant filed the previous application; •.. 

(c)'For purpose of subsection {a)(l), a factual basis of claims is 

available on or before a date described by ~ ·:sabsect ion (a) ( 1), if the 

factual basis 1 was: not assertainable through the exerci~e of reasonable 

diligence or before that date. 

Thus, reaching this conclusion'that, Applicant is entitled to have 

the merits of this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus consideration 

because·· as Applicant pres en ts•. by the. preponderance of the factual ·1 egal basis was unavailable at the time of the initial filed Application 

and its di~position by Both the trial Court and the court of C~iminal 

Appeals. As d~monstrated above the trial Coutt Granted Applicant's 

'Motion' and entered an Order 'Nunc Pro Tunc• Corrected the- 'JUDGMENT 

AND[SENTENCE]''· Reduced the Felony offense from [lst degree aggravated kidnapping]. To reflect the Jury's actual Verdict '[2nd Degree Aggravated Kidnapping]' pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §20.04(b)(Vernon 

l993);See also Hughes V. State, 493 S~W. 2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1973){"A judgment may be reformed so as to show the offense of which 

the accused was found guilt"y··py=:: a·. court· or -·Jury;,) .. 

The actions taken by the trial Court Judge, On [April 21, 2014] was 

well after Applicant's initial Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus' 

filed On [October 15, 2013], in the Harris Cou~nty, .District Clerk's 

4 

.?: •. ;/ .," 
office. And was'Denied Without Written Order' On [January 8, 2014] by 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ... Thus, Applicant is entitle to 

this Application for Writ of Habaes Corpus, consideration being adequately presented and as demonettate above by the preponderance of the 

factual legal ba~i~ was not available at the time Applicant filed the 

initial Application. See e.g., Ex parte Lemke, 13 s.w. 3d 791, 794 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000)(conc1uding that court would address merits of 

subsequent habeas corpus application when applicant-show that claims 

could not have been presented in his ·initial ~rit application because 

the factuaR basis for it was unavailable"). 

Thus, based on the factual basis, preserited herein and based on the 

evidence and the records,· in this instant Application, The Court should 

find that Ap~licant'~ has reached.his burden. That this Honorable Court 

and the Texas Supreme Court Of Criminal Appeals, Both have jurisdiction 

and Statutory authority to address Applicant's claims. Under Article 

11.07, Section 4{a)(l), Texas Code Crimjnal Procedure. 

The recoid in the in~tant case, reflect that the trial Court Judge 

presiding over Applicant's 'Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping 

Judgment'. Entered and Order: Corrected the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. 

Therefore, effectively reduced Applicant's Sentence to a 2nd-Degree Felony. Pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE. ANN. §12.33(a), [Second Degree Felony 

Punishment] provides: 

(ci) 'An··iridividual adjti~~~ guilty of a FeJony of the Second degree 

shall be punished in the Texas Departmnet Justice-In~titutiona1 Division any t'erm mo·r:e-·not ·:bl:T.an [20-years] nor D..ess than 2-years] Id. 

5 

:00031 
The difference fro~ the original trial Court's "Sentence'' ... See 

also TEX.PENAL CODE ANN.§12.32(a), [First Degree Felony Punishment] 

level provides; 

(a)'An individ~al adjudged guilty of the First Degree shall be 

punishm~nt in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-InstitutionDivision for '[LIFE]' or any term not more than [99-years] or less 

than [5-years] id. 

The 'Judgment and Sentence' is in conflict with the punishment imp6sed. The records reflect:that Applicant alone did voluntarily release the complai~ants alive and in a safe place. As a matter of law, 

pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE AN~. §20.04(b}(Vernon 1993), allows a defendant who has been convicted of aggravated·kidnapping to mitigate 

punishment, if he can prove by the preponderance-of the evidence that 

he voluntarily released the ~ict~ms alive and in a safe place. This 

former Statute that Applicant was convicted §(b) and that to the 

current Statute (d). The former Statute in whcih Applicant was convicted. TEX.PENAL CODE·ANN. §20.04(b)(Vernon 1993), which states: 

Id. 

(b)'An offense under this ~ection is a felony of the first degree 

unless the actor voluntarily releases the victim alive and in a 

safe place. in which it is a felony of the second degree.' 

The trial Court Ordered that the Official ~ecords be corrected to 

reflect that Applicant conviction should read Aggravated Kidnapping 

2nd Degree Felony, and Ordered that the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' be 

corrected. However, the Judgmenet reflects .that of assessment of punishment ['LIFE']. Where the Sentence Order to be corrected, but the 

6 

:00032 
attached Sentence Sheet to the Judgmnet reflects the'Sentence EXECUTED'' ... and .apply: is 'Silent' ... ! 

The Court of Criminal Appeals, have held that "When the Oral Pronounce~e~t of sentence in open court and the written judgment con~ 

fl·icts to. the Oral Pronouncement controls." See Thompson V. State, 

108 s.w. 3d 287, 290 (Tex. C~im. App. 2003). 

The Court further held Iri Smith V. State, 15 S.W. 3d at 298-99 

("[B]efore a judgment rtunc pro tunc may be entered, there must be 

proof the_ p~oposed j~dgment was actually entered or pronounced at a 

eariler time".);See also Jones V. State, 795 S.W. 2d at 201; Dickson 

V. State, 988 s.w. 2d at 268. 

In the instant case, the trial Court Judge presiding over the "Nunc 

Pro Tnuc' hearing and proceedings, Order is based on a preponder~nce 

of the evidence. This case being unique, In that thete is not Only 

the Testimony of the Complainant (TANYA MILLER LODEN), that .. Applicant alone drove Her and Her (INFANT-BABY), She referred to as (BABYJOE)--[JOSEPH MILLER LODEN], in Cause No, 659154. To the shoulder of 

the FWY c~utioned He~ of Her where-abo~ts existed Her car, ~he drove 

away, Wheh She arrived home, She called her Husband and the Police 

(SF III, 62-70). There is ~lso a [Verdict Form], that was submitted 

to the Jury, although egregious attached to the Jury's Charge at the 

GUILT/INNOCENCE Phase. See Buchanan V. State,· 881 S.W. 2d 376 (Tex. 

App.-Houston [1 otst] 1994), See alsb 911 s.w. 2d 11, On remand 1996 

WL 640740, petition for discretionary review refused). 

The records reflects that the Original trial Court _presiding over 

Applicant's trial was very aware of the evid~nce that Applicant did 

7 

00033 
voluntarily released the Complainants alive and in a safe place. But 

[DID NOT GIVE ANY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON VOLUNTARY RELEASE IN A 

SAFE PLACE], as a matter of law, pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 

20.04(b){Vernon 1993). Such actions taken by a trial Court has been 

addressed In Starr V. State, 126 s.w. 3d 647, 658 n *1 (Tex. App.-

Houston [14th Dist], 2004). 

In the instant\case, the Original trial Court submitted by attached to the Jury Charge Guilt/Innocence Phase. A [VERDICT FORM] On 

[SPECIAL ISSUE]. The Jury took notice of the Document in the Form of 

a [VERDICT FORM] submitted to them, and reached an unanimous verdict. 

The attached to the Jury Charge at Guilt/Innocence Pha~e, provided ~: 

the following: 

'SPECIAL ISSUE' 

Now, if you have found the Defendant guilty of aggravat~d kidnap-

~iog, as defined in ·this charge, and only in that event; you must determine whether or not the defendaht voluntarily released the victim 

alive and in a safe place. 

"Do you the Jury find the defendant voluntarily released the victim alive and in a safe place, in the commission of the offense for 

which he has been convicted?" 

ANSWER: "We do" or "We do not". 

ANSWER: WE DO -----------------------------David L. Phileps 

Foremari of the Jury 

VERDICT 

We, the jury, return in open court the above answer as our answer 

to the special issue submitted to us, and the same is our verdict in 

8 
this case. 

David L. Philpes 

Fo~eman of the Jurr 

(emphasis added) 

Based on th .records, it is the te~timony by the Complainant (TANYA 

MILLER LODEN)(SF III, 62~70), and the actual Jury~s Verdict Form. The 

Jury's Verdict on the Special Issue. That prompted the trial Court's 

Judge to, Grant ·Applicant's'Mo~ion Reformation Aggravated kidnapping 

Judgment' and Ordered 'Nunc Pro Tunc' Hearing that Ordered:· 'JUDGMENT 

AND[SENTENCE] ([CORRECTED]) THE RECORDS TO REFLECT 2nd-DEGREE FELONY 

AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE• :VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE.' 

The trial Court Judge presiding over the 'Nunc Pro Tunc·· Otders 

and Hearing Corrected the 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE' to reflect the Jury's 

actual verdict. Where the Original trial Court presided over the case, 

the injustice that was done. The trial c6urt Judge presiding over the 

'Nunc Pro Tunc' Hearing Corrected the injustice. However, erred in the 

proceeding Ordered Hearing 'Nunc Pro Tunc' and Ordered Applicant's 

'CORRECTED JUDGMENT-AND SENTENCE'. The trial Court erred in its Order 

Oral Pronouncement at the Hearing in Applicant's absence. 

ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT'OF SENTENCE 

The trial Cour~'s Order 'NUNC PRO TUNC' to· Correct Applicant's 

'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE. Violates TEX.CODE tRlM. PROC. ANN. art •. 42~03, 

§l(a), Applicant being entitle as a matter of law, and due process of 

law to an Oral Pronouncement of Sentence, in accordance with TEX.CODE 

CRIM •. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, sec. l(a)(Vernon Supp. 1993 & 2014), by 

having O~ally Pronoun~ement of Sentence, in Applicant's presents. See 

9 

···. . .. -:-~ .... . -- :00035 • • .:: ... ·'fv,...-.-~ •• ~-~- . -
I • 

Marshall v. State, 860 s.w. 2d 142. (Tex. App.-Da11as 1993, no pet) ;Ex 

parte Madding, 70 s.w. 3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002);Taylor v. State, 

131 S.W. 3d 492, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(citing TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC 

ANN. art. 42.03, §1(a){Vernon2006). 

The trial Court's Order reflects that the Oral Pronouncement kQ 

./ 1'. 

correct Applicant's 'Sentence' as pursuant to TEX.PENAL CODE .. ANN. 

§20.04{b)(Vernon Supp. 1993 & 2014);See al~o Ex parte Phillip, 176 s. 

W. 3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)("The expectation of having the oral 

pronouhcement match the written judgment applied only to sentencing 

issues, as the term of confinement assessed and whether multipLe sentence would be served concurrently"). It is error in the trial Court 

entered the 'Nunc Pro Turic' Ordering the Hearing Pronounced Correction 

of Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. without affording Ap~licahti an 

opportuntiy to be ?iesent for the Hearing,. Sentence, Representation by 

Counsel, in accord to Applicant due process of law. See Shaw V. State, 

539 s.w. 2d 887 (Tex. Cr. App. 1976). In Mitchell v. State, 942 s.w. 

2d 170 (Tex. App.-Amaril1o, 1997)("the appellate court, held that, 

"When valid judgment of conviction for first degree felony offense was 

not nunc pro tunc ju~3ment, butimerely a correction made during term 

time, there was no requirement ~or notice hearing and proof in defendant presence"). Wherefore In Vallez V. S~ate, 21 s.w. 3d 778 (Tex. ·. 

App.~San Antonio 2000)("entry of second nunc pro tunc judgment indicated,that defendantis three controlled substance prosecuting had not 

been consolidated for plea ahd sentencing, was error, where defendant 

was not given opportunity to be. present at hearing and to be heared 

10 

:00036 
~nd represented by counsel, to accord hi~ du~ pr6cess")~ 

ON FEDERAL REVIEW 

A defendant is-constitutionally entitled to due process, at a bare 

minimum, due process requires that a defendant be given notice if the 

punishment to which he has been sentenced. See e.g., Landford V. Idaho 

500 u.s. 110, Ill S.Ct. 1723 (199l)("[A) notice of issue to be resolv• 

ed by the adversary process is a fundamental characti~t6: of fair procedure"):Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. 68 223. I wall. 223 (1863)([C]ommon 

justice requires that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity to make his defense"):In re 

Oliver, 333 u.s. 257, 257, 68 s.ct. 499 (1945)(due process requites 

that a person be given 'reasonable notice of a charge against him, and 

an opporunity be hea~d in his defense[ '] ... to examine the witnesses 

against him to offer testimony, to be represented by counsel"):e.g., 

Downey V. United States, 67 App. 192, 91 F.3d 223, 229 (1937)("changes 

in the record of judgment made without notice to defendant or opportunity to be heard would deprive person of liberity without due process 

of law: "[P]roceedings in absence of the appellant to correct the _record would have been impc.oper, sence the ultimate question involved, 

extent of valid imprisonment to which he might subjected, was one of 

vital interest to him");Compare United States v. Spiers, 82 F.3d 1274, 

1282 (3rd Cir. 1996)(because had notice and was present in court-room 

rights were not effected by the failure to give effect to a complete 

defense to prosecution see :FED.R.CRIM. PL;.:· 43··.:; .:,C:<: ;See also Blakely 

V. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2005). Therefore, based 

ll 

:00037 
on the records, of the 'Nunc Pro Tunc• hearing proceedings, the Pronouncement to correct Applicant's:•Judgment and Sentence• by the trial 

Court Judge presiding over the 'Nu~c Pro Tunc' hearing, Conducted in 

Applicant's absence. Is. error on a magnitude that violates Applicant's 

due process rights, and due process of law, to hold such a hearing with-

~ut Applicant being p~esent, to afforded the opportunity to be heard, 

to be represehted by Counsel, in accord to Applicant's due process of 

law ... [this actual] 'Nunc Pro Tunc' hearing in open Court where the presiding Honoreble Judge [Maria T. (Terri) Jackson, 339th Judicial Distict 

c6urt--can Only b~ found on the trial Court's actual Minutes, as th~ 

District Clerk'~ Office Records, has omi·tted the trial Court's Judge 

Order--Granting Applicant's Motion Reformation Aggravated Kidnapping 

Judgment'. That the presiding trial Court Judge Ordered On April 21. 

2014. As shown by the Document received By Applicant from the 339th 

District court, and being presented append in the 'Appendix-• with other 

Exhibits. As also Applicant's Affidavit; On April 21, 2014. The trial 

Court Ordered specifically ... ~Other:PLEASE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE CORRECTED· JUDGMENT··.AND SENTENCE. ALSO, OUR RECORDS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED TO 

REFLECT~ND DEGREE FELONY-AGGRAVATED·KINAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A BAFE 

PLACE. 

(Emphasis added) 

Surely the tri~l Court's presiding Honor~ble Judge Maria T. (Terri) 

Jackson 339th District Court recollects Her Own Order give~ On April 

21, 2014, to correct Applicant's 'Judgment and Sentence'. It being evident the Judge's Orders was not followed nor carried-out. Making the'Ncnc 

Pro Tunc' Order, hearin~ and proceeding, in violation of Appli~ant1~~ 

due process rights, Applicant's has an expectation to be preserit at the 

12 
hearing, to be given notice, of the hearin~ to be allowed to introduce 

evidence and to be heard, concerning Sentencing, and to be represented 

by Counsel·~in accord to Applica~t's due process of law. In that Appli~ 

cant respectfully request the Court to Re-Order the Hearing and Prone~ 

uncement of Sentence. That Applicant be present at the hearing, to be 

gi¥an Notice, of the Hearing to be allowed to intr6duce evidence and 

to be heard, concerning the S~ntenecing, and to be represented by Counsel, in accord to Applicant's due process of law . 

. ADDITIONALLY, THE CLERK EGREGIOUS-SELF ENTRY IN THE JUDGMENT 

CHANGED APPLICANT'S (SBD)-SENTENCE BEGIN DATE, AND TRANSMITTED, CHANGE 

TO APPLICANT'S [SBD), TO (TDCJ-ID), RECORDS. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION--CLASSIFICATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. 

The records reflects that the Trial Court's Order was given to the 

Clerk in the 339th District Court [L. GUEVARA), On April 21, 2014. The 

Clerk, however, entered Her Own'Entry Of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc' which 

reads as follows: I-OFFENSE FOR WHICH DEFENANT CONVICTION SHOU~D READ: 

AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A SAFE PLACE (100714) 2-DEGREE 

OF OFFENSE SHOULD READ: 2ND DEGREE FELONY. 

T-he ·records furthe.r., ... reflects .that _The Clerk: [L. ___ GuevetriiJ~ ([CHANGED 

APPLICANT'S])--[SBD)-SENTENCE BEGIN DATE]).to 3/12/1993. From its Original Sentence Begiri date 3/"10"/1993. The date Ap~lic&nt was Arrested and 

held in Detention On 3/ "10• /1993. The Cl.erk: [L. Gurvara] , transmit ted 

to (TDCJ=ID)_,_Texas Depar;t:ment of Criminal Justice-Institutional Di vision--Classi fication and Custodian of Records .. That 11 [NO-CHANGE] 11 in 

Applicant's [SBD] OR [MAX DATE] ... W~ere in Fact the records reflect the 

Change was made ONLY to Applicant [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. The Change 

is also reflected in Applicant's Corrected Judgment the Change 3/12/1993 . 

. 13 

:00039 
as to the Original Correct Judgment [SUPERSEDED BY NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRY DATE 4/21/14]. Do Not reflect any such date of 3/12/1993. Nor 

did the trial Court's Order authorize such a Correction Or Change. 

The Corrected 'Judgment Sheet arid the attached Sentence Sheet at the 

·lower life part reflect the Clerk: [L. Guevara] and her initial. 

The Clerk: [L. Guevara] has NO power~nd was given NO authorization. To take such actions. Reg~rdless of whether or riot any Change 

was made to Applicant's Time Credit. Even the power of a trial Court 

is limited in such situations. To impose a change in a defendant's 

[SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. After ~he a defendant's sentence has begun. 

For an Example a~·~ttempt was made to cumulate sentence after the 

defendant has begun derving the first sentence was void. See Ex parte 

Voelkel, 517 s.w. 2d 291-93 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1984, pet). 

Similar!~, an attempt to resentence defendant to take an enhancement 

paragraph into account is void. See Tooke V. State, 642 S.W. 2d 514, 

518 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1982, no pet). A defendant's sentence beg in to run on the day it is pron~unc_ed. TEX .COD_E CRIM. PROC. 

ANN. art. 42.09, .§1 (Vernon Supp. 1993}:State V. Evans, 817 S.W. 2d 

807, 808 · ( Tex ~- "App :-=waco -1991) , aff 'd in part on other grounds, 843 

s.w. 2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). It is well-settled that a trial 

Court has ·.,.; authority to Order'Nunc. Pro Tunc' entrie·s·-in··a-j'udgment 

and Sentence. See Johnson V. State, 233 S.W. 3d 420 (Tex. App.-Forth 

Wbrth 2007}(A co~rection can be made to reflect what actually happen 

at trial by entry nunc pro tunc judgment, but corrections can be as 

14 

·.: 00040 
to what was done not as to what should have been done). In Beasley· v. 

State, 718 s.w. 2d 304, 305·(Tex. App.-[7th Dist], 1995)("Trial judge 

could not alter a jury verdict after it\had been accepted and entered 

into the record, and was ordered to enter a sentence that was .. · con-

~istent with the jury's verdict"): See also State ex rel. Latty V. 

Owns, 907 s.w. 2d 484, 486 (Tex.l995)("Judicial action taken after the 

court's jurisdiction over a case was nullity"). 

Therefore, Clerk: [L. Guevara] cannot m~ke such a. change in Applicant's [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date. This is especially true. Having No 

authorization to do so. The trial Court's Order was to make corrections 

to Applicant's 'JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE'. And to 'ALSO, RECORDS CORR·ECTED 

TO REFLECT 2ND DEGREE FELONY-AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING RELEASE VICTIM IN A 

SAFE PLACE. 

Not to make any Changes •to Applicant's [SBD].-Sentence Begin Date.· 

The trial. Court with legal latitute. Did not seek to make s~ch a change. 

The Clerk: [L. Guevara] has NO-Legal Nor Autorization to make Changes to suit Her desire or intent. In rega~ds to changes made to a defendant's [SBD]-Sentence Begin Date, arid Time Credit. In an analogous 

case. In Breacheisen v. State, 958 S~W. 2d 490, 492 (Tex. App.-Fort 

Worth 1997), the app~11ate court, said "HARM' is presumed, and in this 

case, it is clear." Ibid. It found that harm to the appellant was "denial of cr~dit for the time she was in cus~ody" in the other counties, 

and the loss of a wihdfal1" which shob[d would have from a dismissal. 

id. at 492-93. but further,· held that, because the trial court granted 

15 

:.·~-t·:.. £,-· 
·--- ···----··-··--------------------------------==--

the appellant credit for the time she was in custody, the appellant 

had been ma[d]e whole'' and the. error "did not contribute to the con-' 

viction or p~nishment. Nor did it deprive appellant of a substantial 

right.·" id. at 493 ... But Brecheisen, filed (PDR) (CCA), the Court of 

Criminal Appeals, held that,,. the,court of appeals in its conclusion 

is Wrong on its face under either standard; to reversible error in 

TEX.R. APP. PROC~ 44.2[a) & (b). Not Only did the trial Court's error 

in denying the motion to dismiss ~dntribute to the conviction or punishment," it was essentd~l to them. See TEX.R. P. Rule 44.2(a), and it 

cannot be said that a defendant's substantial rights were not effected 

by the f~ilure to give effect to a complete defense to prosecution. 

See TEX.R. APP. Rule 44.2(b).: Brecheisen v. State,~4 s.w. 3d 761 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1998), petition.for discretionary review. id. 

The United States Supreme Court took this view of the remedy for 

error th~t would bar retrial reversal on appeal~ in .. another analogous 

case. In Struck v. United States, 412 u.s.· 434, 93 s.ct. 2260 {1973), 

defendant was guilty .of a federal pffense.· When the government failed 

t6 prosecute him for ten months, he was denied.the speedy trial which is 

required by the Sixth Amendment [The court of appeals attempted to cure 

the error by givdng [STRUCK CREDIT] against his sentence for time during which he ha~ been denied a speedy ~rial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "Only possible remedy'' for violation of the Sixth 

Amendment right to a speedy tria~ is a ddsmissal. id. at 440, 93 s.ct. 

2260 ..... (emphasis added). 

And Ih State V. Kanpa, 795 S.W. 2d 36, 39 (Tex. App.-Bouston [1st 

16 

;00042 
Dist], 1990)(If the district clerk's records do not reflect correctly 

the appellant may properly seek to have them corrected). 

Tn this respective, Applicant respectfully reg~esting the Court to 

make the appropriate corrections. Ent~red egregious in Applicant's 

Judgment and Sentence, and thereto correct Applicant [SBD]-Sentence 

Begin Date. Back to its Original Date Of 3/10/1993. From the egregious 

entry in the Judgment and T~ansmitted to (TDCJ-ID), Texas Deprtment of 

Criminal Justice-Institut~onal Division--Classification and Custodian 

of Records. The records should properly reflect the date of the •alleged offense on March 4, 1993. Applicant being found guilty by Jury On 

October 2~, 1993~ and Arrested On March 10, 1993. Being the e~~ct: date 

Applicant was taken intoJ,custudy and held in detention at the West University Place Police Department. Being the Arresting agency. 

In th~se·error presented. The Court should Grant Applicant's requests 

and Order a Hearing and· Orally'?ronouncement of Applicant's 'Judgment· 

and Sentence' iri Applicant's presents, to ~fford Applicant due process 

·right and due process of law, that He may have the opportunity to be 

heard, ;~·.ntrod!Jce eyidence, exaim~ any "{i.tnesses. against Him, to be represented by Counsel. 

Thus, the Court should follow the well-settled law set-out in Vasquez, 

not because the written judgment was "void", but because 'it violates a 

defendant's Constitutional Right to due process to Orally Pronouncement 

Sentence to him and that later without giving him an opportunity to be 

heard, enter a written judgment impo~ing a significant harsher Sentence. 

See Ex parteVasquez, 712 S.W. 2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). 

17 
CONCLUSION OF PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Applicant prays this Honorable 

Court consider each and every;point ra~sed herein and act a~crdingly, 

in respect of the law, Granting these requests, considering the evidence presented and the applicabl precedent cited i~ proposit~ion above, 

that this Honorable C~urt action taken aa a matter of law, and in the 

interest of justice. 

Respectfully Submitted 

0&-hi.JJJ d?owt 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE JR. 

:T.D.C.J.-ID#669750 

HUGHES UNIT. 

RT· .. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TEXAS 

76597 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Arthur David Lowe, being the [Applicant], herein hereby certify 

that the foregoing is a TRUZ and CORRECT copy Applicant's Applicatiom 

' for Writ of Habeas Corpus• pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07, §(a)(l)(Vernon Supp. 2014) .. '~'}1at a ,TRUE copy has been Jeliverec;] 

by U.S. Mail Postal Service to : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, P.O. BOX 

12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN,,TEXAS 78711 (as the Letter accompanyihg 

this Applicatipn acknowle4ge to the Clerk(s) the::State's Representative(s) 

being the District Attorney(s) Off~ce and the Courts')) and the same being Mailed to:CHRIS DANIEL, HARRIS COUNTY, DISTRICT CLERK, P.O. BOX 

4651, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651. ( ( AX.L) the Records 1 Documents .can be 

verified by the Harris County, Disttict Clerk's Office and Official Records and (TDCJ-TD), Te.xas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional 

18 

:00044 
Classification and Custodian Of Records. And the trial Court Records, Minutes the 'UNNC PRO TUNC'. hearing I further SWEAR Under 

PENITLY OF PERJURY, That ALL the information, Documents can be 

verified as stated herein, Application and, Fo~m~-~pplication. And 

the same is delivered as stated indicated. 

On this the 2 'L day of Ju <..}( , 2o14. --"----'----

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, ProSe. 

T.D.C.J.~ID#669750 

APPENDIX-COPIES-LISTED 

1). Response to App1dcant's Missiveu concerning 11.07, Application 

for Writ Of habeas Corpus (FILED OCTOBER 15, 2013)(1-Page) 

2). Applicant's Motion for Suggestion For Reconsideration: Filed 

In the Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals (DENIED JANUARY 14, 2014) 

(1. of 19~ Pages). 

3). Motion For Leave To~Fi1e Writ Of Madamus, WR-25,679-13-(FILED IN 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS***APPLICANT'S SUPPLY TO THE COURT 

WITH THE WRIT NUMBER, BEING UNABLE TO PROVIDE A COPY AT THIS "TIME* 

4). Service Copy On Harris Coun.ty,· District Clerk's Office--Motion for 

·'' Leave To File Writ Of Mandamus ( 1 of 9, Pgaes). 

5). TriaU Court's Order 'Nunc Pro Tunc• Grantin~ Applicant's Motion 

attached [Superseded By Nunc Pro Tunc Entry Dated 4/21/14] (1 of 

3, Pgaes--that includes Judgment & Sentence]. 

6. The Clerk's Entry Of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc--attached--Judgment 

&· Sentence)."-

7) . [ Affidavit By Vanessa Jone,s,, Chairman, Class is fica t ion and Records 

attachments (1 of 7, Page~). 

19 

. :00045 
August 6, 2014 

LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID 

#669750 HUGHES UNIT 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TX 76597 

RE: CAUSE#659156-B 

339th District Court 

Dear t\pplicanl: 

CHRIS DANIEL 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

Yuilr post conviction application ror Writ or Habeas Cl>rpus was r~-ccivcd and lilcd Oil 07/:!'J/14. Article 11.07 or the Tc:-.as l.."lllk 

or Criminall'rm:~durc afli•rds the Stale 15 days in whkh to answer the application alicr having he~:n served wilh said applil.."alion. 

1\l'lcr the 15 days allowed the Sl<lle lo answer the application. the Court has 20 d<~ys in whid1 it may ord.:r lh.: designation or 

issu..:s Ill be r~:solved. ifnny. If the Coun has not entered an orderdesignalin!,! issues to he resolved within.l:i daysatier the Stale 

ilaving. been s.:rvcd with the applkali1H1. the applicntion will he forwnrded In the Court oi"Criminal/\ppeals fur th.:ir 

consi1krmion pursuant tn 1\rtil.:le 11.07. Sec. J(c) ol"the Texas Code oi"Cri111inal l'n•~·edurc. 

The records of I he onice rclkl·t tht.: lillll)wing: 

CAliSE NO. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISPOSITION 

659156-A 12118/13 DENIED 

.il!]_future corn:spondcncc should indicntc the ahow list~::d cause number. 

§i·..,.nc .. erely;---·-~ .. '/. 'D. ~A') /'";::Z,:t ~.k<rJ~-4..1-vL 

·-Erin Bryi~, I:>eputy 

Criminal Post Trial 

CC: District Attorney 

Judge, Presiding Court 

12111 FRANI\I.IN • P.O. lklX 4651 • HOUSTON. TEXAS 77210-4651 I'AC;r: I OF I 

Rr:v. 01-02-04 

. ·.' 

00114 
Belinda Hill 

Interim First Assistant 

Criminal Justice Center 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002-1901 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

DEVON ANDERSON 

Chris Daniel, District Clerk 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin 

Houston, Texas 77002 

August 6, 2014 

Re: Ex parte LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID 

No. 659156-B in the 339TH 

District Court of Harris County, Texas 

.Filing date: 07/29/14 

Date copy of writ delivered to District Attorney's Basket: 08/0~14-___ _ 

By: ERIN G BRYAN 

Dear Sir: 

' I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the above-captioned post conviction application for 

writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Therefore, I waive service by certified mail as provided therein. 

I understand that I have 15 days from the date received to answer. 

Sincerely, 

~~UG 0 8 2014 

Date Received Assistant District Attorney -········· 

· Harris County, Texas 

:00115 
CAUSE NO. 0659156-B 

EX PARTE § 

§ OF 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, 

Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, 

files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, having been served with . . 

an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CoDE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07 § 3 (West 2013), and would show the following: 

I. 

The applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the 

339th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 0659156 (the 

primary case), where the applicant was convicted pursuant to a guilty Jury verdict 

for the felony offense of aggravated kidnapping. The jury assessed punishment, 

enhanced by two (2) prior felony convictions, at life confinement in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), formerly the 

Texas Department of Corrections. 

:00116 
On January 19, 1995,· the First Court of Appeals affirmed the applicant's. 

appeal. Lowe v. State, No. 01-93-00987-CR, 1995 WL 19052 (Tex. App.-Houston 

[1st Dist.] Jan. 19, 1995, pet. ref' d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

-The applicant filed a ·previous --writ -application challenging his conviction, 

cause number 0659156-A. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the applicant's first 

application on December ~8, 2013. · 

II. 

The State denies the factual allegations made in the instant application, 

except those supported by official court records, and offers the following additional · 

reply: 

The applicant alleges trial court error and clerical error. See Writ Application 

at 6-7. However, this is the applicant's second writ application. As the applicant 

was denied of his first application in cause number 0659156-A, Section 4 of Arti.cle 

11.07 then governs the filing of this application. If a subsequent writ application is 

filed after the final disposition of an application challenging the same conviction, 

the Court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on a subsequent 

application unless the application contains sufficient specific ·facts establishing 

that: 

2 

:00117 
(1) the current claims have not been and could not ·have been presented 

previously in an original or in a previously considered application 

because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the 

date the applicant filed the previous application; or 

(2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United 

States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

TEX. (RIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 11.07 § 4 (a) (West 2013) (emphasis added). 

The instant writ application ·was filed after the final disposition of the 

applicant's prior writ application, cause number 0659156-A, challenging the same 

. conviction. The applicant has failed to include. sufficient specific facts establishing 

that the current claims could not have been presented previously .because. the 

factual or legal basis for the claims were unavailable; or that, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court may not consider the merits of or grant 

relief based on the instant writ of habeas corpus, and the instant writ should be 

dismissed. 

Ill. 

The applicant raises questions of law and fact which can be resolved by the 

Court of Criminal Appeals upon review of official court records and without need for 

an evidentiary heari~g. 

3 

:00118 
IV. 

·Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the 

following address: 

Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr. 

TDCJ # 669750 

Hughes Unit 

Rt 2 Box 4400 

Gatesville, Texas 76597 

SIGNED this 13th day of August, 2014. 

4 

Respectfully submitted, 

Sharon Y. Chu 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

(713) 755-5240 fax 

Texas Bar I. D. #24051950 

:00:119 
EX PARTE 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, 

Applicant 

CAUSE NO. 0659156-B 

§ IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT 

§ OF 

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f) 

The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, 

files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been 

served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. 

Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words inthe State's 

Original Answer is 621. 

Signed this 13th day of August, 2014. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Sharon Y. Chu 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

Texas Bar# 24051950 

:00120 
August 14, 2014 

LOWE, ARTHUR DAVID 

#669750 HUGHES UNIT 

RT. 2. BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE, TX 76597 

To Whom It May Concern: 

CHRIS DANIEL 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERI' 

Pursuant to Article 11.07 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please tind enclosed 

copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ tiled in 

cause number 659156-B in the 339th District CoUJ1. 

[] State's Original Answer Filed August 13, 2014 

0 Affidavit 

0 Court Order Dated· 

0 Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Atlidavit. 

0 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order 

0 Other 

· Sincerely. .-:~--· --... .. , 

(;~~ ~_,1- ...(.~-);;,;;:;-/1-Ctt,vt-.) t~r·'\VY~l ·Erin Bryan, Deputy.~/ · 

Criminal Post Trial 

Enclosure(s)-

---·--··-------·----·-·-----··-·--··· . 

1201 FIV\NI.:LIN • 1'.0. Box M1SI • HousTON. Trx,,s 77210-•H;51 • (XXX) 545-5577 

Rr:v: Ol-02-04 

:00121 
i.--··. 

EX PARTE 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, 

Applicant 

' ' . 1..{ .. 1 i l '; •'' ~-·· • \ ,,•i I' ;,:•• •' 

CAUSE NO. 0659156-B [-~)· _____ _,.LU..,.,.: /~~-· .. '.' 

§ IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT 

§ OF 

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

THE STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 

The Court has considered the application for writ of ,habeas corpus, the 

State's answer, and the official court records in the above-captioned cause. The 

Court finds that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to . ' 

the legality of the applicant's confinement which require an evidentiary hearing 

and recommends that the instant writ . application be dismissed because the 

applicant fails to include sufficient specific facts establishing that his grounds for 

relief could not have been presented previously because the factual or legal basis 

for the claim was unavailable; or that, by ·a preponderance of the evidence, no 

rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

TEx. CODE CRIM. PRoc. ANN. art. 11.07 § 4(a) (West 2013). 

THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript and transmit same to the 

Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by TEX. CODE (RIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 {West 

2013). The transcript shall include certified copies ofthe following documents: 

1 

:00.122 
1. the application for writ of habeas corpus; 

2. the State's answer; 

3. the Court's order; 

4. the indictment, judgment and sentence, and docket sheets in 

cause number 0659156; 

5. the Court's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law; and 

6. the State's and the applicant's proposed Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law (if any) . 

. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the 

applicant, Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr., TDCJ # 669750, Hughes Unit, Rt 2 Box 4400, 

Gatesville, Texas 76597; and a copy of this order to counsel for the State, Sharon 

Y. Chu, Assistant District Attorney, Harris County Districf Attorney's Office, 1201 

Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002. 

By the following signature, the Court adopts the State's Proposed Findings of 

Fact, ConclusiQns of law and Order in cause number 0659156-B. 

AUG l 8 2UI( 

Signed this ____ _ 

2 

:00123 
.;~I 

•, 

CAUSE NO. 0659156-B li>•-.:.: . , f:__J~---... ----·· 

EX PARTE § • IN THE 339TH /:lJsJtr~;~~ '"' . § OF 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, 

Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, T EX AS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Service has bee·n accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the 

following address: 

Mr. Arthur David Lowe, Jr. 

TDCJ # 669750 

Hughes Unit 

Rt 2 Box 4400 

Gatesville, Texas 76597 

SIGNED this 13th day of August, 2014. 

3 

Respectfully submitted, 

/ ,. 

Sharon Y. Chu 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

(713) 755-5240 fax 

Texas Bar I. D. #24051950 

:00124 
CAUSE NO. 06.59156-8 

EX PARTE § IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT 

§ OF 

ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, 

Applicant § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f) 

The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, 

files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been 

served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc . 

. Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's 

Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order is 441. 

I . 

Signed this 13th day of August, 2014. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

( '. 

,· 

Sharon Y. Chu 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

Texas Bar# 24051950 

:00125.