z/-

DATE: iZac^C. JAN 05 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals loni ° \^

P-O- Box 12308. Capitol Station

Austin- Texas 78711

December 23. 2014

RE: Cause no- C-371-010342-0826520-D "REFILING OF RETURNED MOTION.

AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS -

Dear ABEL COSTA. Clerk -

Please deliver the enclosed Motion(s) and Petition to the Court

to be AMENDED to my oriqinal 11-07 Writ of Habeas Corpus and heard

by the Court as "PREVIOUSLY" filed and RETURNED to me from your

officePlease NOTE that the 'oriqinal' 11-07 Writ of Habeas Corpus

Stamped Filed in the Tarrant County Court 371 by Clerk Thomas

A. Wilder November 18- 2014- was ORDERED transmitted to your

office on December 12- 2014 by Judge Mollie Williams-Dec -12•2014-

Your "NOTICE" to me "RETURNING" my Motion and Petition statinq

that "at this time you do not have a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

in the Court of Criminal Appeals " dated December 16• 2014 I -

received throuqh U-S-Mail on December 23- 2014-

PLEASE STAPLE AND REFILE THIS MOTION AND PETITION FOR AMENDMENT

OF EXHIBIT -F- AND Motion for WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO

RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THIS (MOTION TO RE-AMENDFORMER: MOTION

AND PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S REPLYTHANK YOU for any and all service and consideration into this

matterSincerely

Gery Ze£ Scott

TDCJ-rD# 1123905

Ramsey One Unit

1100 F-M- 655

Rosharon- Texas 77583

CC:GLS.
EX PARTE § IN THE COURT

§ OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

GERY LEE SCOTT § OF TEXAS

MOTION TO "RE-AMEND" FORMER :

"MOTION TO (AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERD HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS""

AND

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO

STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

NOW COMES- GERY LEE SCOTT- hereinafter•(Scott)• Movant in

this action and does plead the Court allow the aforementioned

Motion(s) and Petitioner's Reply to be ENTERED as amendments

to his oriqinal 11 07 Complaint Application because:

As shown as a matter of "Record" Scott 'filed his "MOTION TO

(AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS

ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"" on December 01. 2014 as stamped by ClerkAbel Acosta "Received in Court of Criminal Appeals (RETURNED

TO SCOTT December 23- 2014 along with his PETITIONER"^ REPLY

TO STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS- stamped

RECEIVED IN Court of Criminal Appeals'.- December 04 . 2014. ClerkAbel Acosta and (RETURNED) to Scott on December 23- 2014 a span

of 22 days lapsinq from receipt into the Court to return to

Scott thouqh the 371 Judicial District Court of Tarrant County TXhad transmitted it's findings and ORDER from the:Trial Court

Judge on December 12- 2014 and its first notice of Scott's Filed

11.07 November 18. 2014 as Stamped, by Thomas Wilder- Dist- Clerk

Tarrant County. Texas.

(1.)
See November 20- 2014 State's Reply to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus•(PATRICIA HATLEY),Deputy District Attorney- and--

State's Reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus•((signature

undestinguishable)) Dated December 11- 2014(MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS

& ORDER "December 12 2014 Filed by Thomas A- Wilder- Dist

Clerk Tarrant County- Texas- Time 11:58-

: Scott avers that he filed his "original" 11-07 application

November 4- 2014;Stamp FILED BY Thomas Wilder Clerk- tarrant

County- TX- - Nov- 18- 2014 and received answer of the'same on

Nov. 20. 2014; Filed his "MOTION TO AMEND "EXHIBIT -F- AND REQUEST

FOR • COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED' TO ^RESPONDENTS" " , on Nov25. 2014- STAMPED FILED Abel Acosta Dec:01- 2014 (Returned to

Scott December 23- 2014); Filed his PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S.

REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF" HABEAS CORPUS- Nov.-' 26- 2014 Stamped

filed Dec- 04- 2014 Abel Acosta Clerk.; "also" RETURNED TO.Scott

stating. "NOTHING FILED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT

this time-(Notice Dated December 16- 2014 Abel Costa- Clerk)- ;

THOUGH. the Tarrant County Clerk's Office 'transmitted' it's

MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS & ORDER to the Court of Criminal, appeals

December 12- 2014 (time) 11:58 Thomas A. Wilder. Clerk,Scott

receiving his notice December 18, 2014 of the same- thus Scott

also avers that he "timely" filed h is Motion and Petition to

the Court of Criminal Apepals in answer to the State's Reply(s)-

as well as it's Memorandum/Findings & Order-

(2.)
Scott request that the contents mailed to the Court of Criminal

Appeals Clerk. Abel Acosta- this December 23- 2014 be FILED

and AMENDED to his "ORIGINAL" 11-07 Habeas Corpus Applicationand HEARD with the affect of 'findings' of the CCA pursuant

to Scott's original 11-07 Application-(See Original Application

No. C-371010342-0816520-D - ; MOTION TO AMEND "EXHIBIT-F- AND

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"":

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S REPLY TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS-; EX PARTE GERY LEE SCOTT No. C-371-010342-0826520-D

MEMORANDUM/FINDINGS & ORDER (Dec-12- 2014) Tarrant County- Texas

District Court Clerk- Thomas A- Wilder-)

PRAYER ' i~ ..

I- MOVANT in this action• PRAYS that the. Honorable Court of

Criminal Appeals of Texas- GRANT relief as prayed in this affidavit

and take into account (all) of the relevant provided information

herein and throuqho.ut Scott's filinq(s) respectively- but in

the alternative this Honorable Court'Judg'e render such reliefthat Scott seeks to relieve his suffering under 'law' that

is "unconstitutional" and arbitrarily abrogates his punishment.

CC:GLS.

(3.)

Respectfully Submitte,

3ery Lej^/HS'cott

TDCJ-ID# 1123905

Ramsey One Unit

,1100 F-M- 655

Rosharon. Texas 77583

pro se
UNSWORN DECLARATION

I. GERY LEE SCOTT, is the Movant in .this action and does declare

under the Penalty' of"Perjury that the information in this affidavit

is True and Correct to the best of my knowledge and attest to

the same as signed to this {/^ZP Day of December 2014. -,

^/GERY LEE/ SCOTT ~~PRO SE

CERTIFICATION

I- GERY LEE SCOTT. DO CERTIFY THAT THIS ACTION HEREINMENTIONED HAS

BEEN DELIVERED TO THE Ramsey One Unit "Indigent" LAW LIBRARY MAIL

BOX FOR PROCESSING TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT

AUSTIN- ON DECEMBER 23, 2014 and signed to the same this 23rd

Day .of December. 2014-

Respectfully Submitted-

^©fy I^e SGOtt^

^-

pro se

CC:GLS.

(4.)
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

TOM PRICE

PAUL WOMACK

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

CATHY COCHRAN

ELSA ALCALA

JUDGES

Court of Criminal Appeals

RO. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

December 16,2014

Gery Lee Scott

Ramsey Unit I TDCJ#1123905

1100F.M. 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583

RE: Cause no. C-371-010342-0826520-D

9. ¥^k

Dear Mr. Scott,

After a thorough search of our records, we find that.you have do not haye a Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals at this time. If you have any

further questions or concerns, please direct them to the District Clerk in the convicting

county where you originally filed the application.

I am here with returning your documents.

Sincerely,

OJulCUk

Abel Acosta

Clerk

AA/vc

Enclosure

Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, room 106, Austin, Texas 78701

website: www.cca.courts.state.tx.us

Abel Acosta

CLERK

512-463-1551

SIAN R. SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

512-463-1597
CAUSE NO- C-371-010342-0826520-D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUJS

SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION

UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 11.07; 11.05; 11.23.

"MOTION TO (AMEND) "EXHIBIT -F- AND

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERED HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS"'*

EX PARTE GERY LEE SCOTT

Movant -

V.

BRAD LIVINGSTON, EXEC.DIR.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

(TDCJ). Respondents

^012014

>©i Acosta, Clerk

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

Now Comes,' GERY LEE SCOTT- hereinafter. (Scott) requesting

permission to "amend" h is (Exhibit -F-; "TIME CREDIT DISPUTE

RESOLUTION FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION"-dated 11/10/2014 by

(Kelly Enlae. 'assistant Director for Classification and Records.)

Scott avers that he has attached the original sent to him

on 11/10/2014 and received by h im on 11/22/2014. and request

it be amended to his original C-371-O10342-0826520-D Application

(From) the 371 Tarrnt County Texas Court.

Scott also in h is Motion to the Honorable Court request

that this Honorable Court of Criminal Apepals of Texas issue

through "Order" a Habeas Corpus to the Respondents illegally

restraining him. to release h im from his illegal restraint

pursuant to Article 11.05 and 11.23 respectively, his. "only"

means of immediate redress for relief of his illegal restraint.

(1.)
and by virtue of the "unconstitutional laws" enforcing his illegal

restraint/(V.T.C.A. §508.145-§508.149). that the Honorable Court

pursuant to 11.07. 11.05. 11.23- Order the Respondents holding

Scott illeqally. to deliver h im from his illegal restraint

to the Court of jurisdiction for adjudication of his claims

he is illegally restrained by virtue of unconstitutional law

arbitrarily abrogating his EARNED Good-Time and Work-Time calcul

ated to his Flat-Time mandating his "release" to parole when the

specific enumerated factors exist to exact Half-Time served

to the sentence for trigger of release to parole.

Scott avers that his 35 year sentence he has served 12 years

Flat-Time plus his EARNED 11 years Good-Time plus EARNED 6 years

Work-Time equal 29 years and certainly calculate over HALF

his time served coward the sentence for release to parole as

mandated by the Statutes to trigger Scott's release to parole.

(See Exhibit "E" Time Calculation Sheet 10/17/2014)(Const.Amend13- 14- 5-)(V.T.CA.§508.145-§508.149).

Scott avers that he is protected by the U.S. 13 Const. Amendfrom arbitrarily abrogated punishment of "Involuntary Servitude"

"EXCEPT [AS] A PUNISHMENT" towit the 371 Court nor the V-T-CA.

§508-145-§508.149 specifically adress but instead clearly exact

through V-T-CA. §497.002(2) there TDCJ clearly define it's

understanding of Scott's "LABOR"(EARNED Work-Time) as ((2)"Reduce

Department Cost---" a phrase enducted into law of the under

standing in common and law lanquaqe to equal "money" which is

the only understanding of a thinq that could reduce"cost'';

thus renderinq Scott's EARNED Work-Time equal to the same and

(2.)
under the law of §497-002(2) by it's own language and definition

creates Scott's "liberty interest" in his Work-Time and sets

§508-145-§508.149 contrary to §497-002(2) where Scott would

have a vested "liberty interest" in his Work, and Good-Time by virtue

of §508.145-§508-149 "denying" Scott REVIEW formula of his GoodTime and Flat-Time equalling that review thus Scott's Good-Time

by virtue of (3q) language of the Statutes place Scott's GoodTime into "new" meaning absent application toward "REVIEW" and

Scott's Work-Time given "new" meaning through law of §497-002(2)

as "reducinq cost for TDCJ" the Statute itself "creating" Scott's

liberty interest in h is EARNED Work-Time'CAUSE an absurd outcome

for Scott's EARNED Work-Time and Good-Time respectively as they

relate to a calculated mandate to release on parole since the

Statutes at issue mandate "only" release to parole or Maximum

Sentence Date.

Scott avers that since he can "only" release from TDCJ by

(two) mechanisms enacted by the Statutes (serve his entire sentence

to the maximum allowed bv lav/) or (parole) when certain enume

rated factors triqqer release to parole- (see TDCJ-Offender

Orientation Handbook pg- 56 l-(c-) ".--These offenders mustbe released on parole- or on their maximum expiration dates.")

this act authorized by §508.145-§508.149 (3g) catagory denvinq

Scott Const. Amend. 14 Due Process of his EARNED Good-Time and

Work-Time since the Statutes at issue (§508-145-§508.149 and

§497.002(2)) are. certainly qivino specific value to Scott's

W rk-Time in §4^?.002(2) and his Good-Time in §508 -145-§:)03.149

Where s£>4cific language dl the" "Statute -his Gds<S-TiiAe IS NOT

(3.)
to be considered coward his release to parole and Fiat-Time

served to the half of the sentence is the only trigger to release*

Scott's Good-Time is. specific by. the language of the Statute

as being a value and thus creating Scott's liberty interest

in both Good-Time by virtue of §508 .145-§ 508.149. and Work-Time

by virtue Of §497.002(2) respectively.

Scott avers that Good-Time and Work-Time like Flat-Time

have for the entire existance of TDC/TDGJ been defined as awards

EARNED towards reduction of time spent in TDC/TDCJ and thus

absent having "ever" been specific towards any other privilege

or benefit otherthan "REVIEW" for parole under (Discretionary

Mandatory Supervision HouseBili 1433 cases) specifically denied

Scott pursuant to §503.145-§508.149 (3g.)) his Work and Good

Time Credits are thus rendered by virtue of the Statutes "new"

definition reverting back to "liberty interest" value and protected

by the 14th Const. Amend due process.(see TDCJ Handbook pg. 54. -

60. 70th Leg.-75th Leg.);(VTCA §508.145-§508.149) (§497.002(2).);

(Const.Amend.14,13 -5).

Scott avers that the State of Texas is not authorized to

"enact" or "enforce" any law that would deprive, Scott of his

liberty or property but by virtue of the due course of law.(14

Const.Amend.), therefore Scott equally avers that the State

of Texas through it's Legislative bodies has enacted and enforced

1aws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution 14 and are un

authorized by the same causing Scott to suffer arbitrary abrogated

punishment by virtue of the §508.145-§508.149 laws created by

Texas Legislators and enforced by TDCJ.(Const-Amend.14.13,5)(§508

-145-§508.149).

(4. )
Scott avers that he has met the bruden of proving that his

claims of the Statutes at issue being unconstitutional on their

faces and as they are applied to Scott's Work and Good Time

Credits being legally abragated :towards his release to parole

is clear in the language of the Statutes themselves and the

mandated acts they enforce causing Scott's suffering and damage

of illegal restraint thus Scott should be Granted 'relief from

the Honorable Court Ordering the issue of habeas corpus to his

Respondents to deliver Scott to the jurisdictional^court of

authority to ascertain if and why Scott is by virtue of the

Statutes at issue illegally restrained.(See §508.145-§508.149);

(§497.002(2));(Const.Amend. 14. 13. 5);(TDCJ-Handbook pg. 54.-

60. 70th-75 Legislatures) respectively.

PRAYER.

Scott PRAYS that the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals

of Texas GRANT him relief- Ordering issue of a writ of habeas

corpus to the Respondents instructing them to deliver Scott

t-o a specified jurisdictional court to ascertain whether Scott

is in fact by virtue of the Statutes §508.145-:508.149(3g) held

in illegal restraint of h is liberty and denied his rights under

the U.S. Constitution to due process of his Work and Good Time

Credits for release on parole from TDCJ,(see U.S. Const. Amend. 14.

13 .5) (§508.145-§508-149);(TDCJ-Gffender Orientation Handbook

pg. 54.-60-; 70th-75ch Legislature);(§497.002(2)).

UNSWORN DECLARATION

Scott, Declares he is the Movant in this action and swears

under penalty of perjury that the information in th is action

is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, and attest

to the same siging this J^^^ay of Novembe-B-y 2014.

GERY L COTT PRO 3c;
EXHIBIT "F"

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CUSTODIAN OF OFFENDER RECORDS

TIME CREDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION

FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION

DATED 11/10/2014
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CUSTODIAN OF OFFENDER RECORDS

TIME CREDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION

FINAL CERTIFICATION DECISION

Offender Name :

TDCJ# :

Offender Location

SCOTT.GERY LEE

01123905

R1

You filed a request for correction of time credited toward the completion of your

sentence pursuant to the Department's internal time credit dispute resolution process

to address time credit calculation error complaints.

Your request for correction of calculation of the time credit earned toward completion

of your sentence was received by the Custodian of Offender Records on 9/8/2014 •

Pursuant to Section 501.0081 of the Texas Government Code, the Custodian of

Offender Records is required to issue a finding in an attempt to resolve the complaint.

The Custodian of Offender Records issues the following finding regarding your

complaint:.

injury to a child w/ a deadly weapon is a 3g offense. You have to serve 50% of

your time on that sentence before coming up for parole. You are not parole

eligible until 8-11-2019

If you are dissatisfied with this response from the Custodian of Offender Records, you

may contact State Counsel for futher assistance.

This concludes the administrative processing of this complaint by the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.

DATE: 11/10/2014

SIGNATURE:

TITLE:

/

"T^ %„J,.

S"

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

CLASSIFICATION AND RECORDS

ADDRESS: TDCJ CLASSIFICATION AND RECORDS OFFICE

BOT WAREHOUSE

P.O. BOX 99

HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77342
Court of Criminal Appeals

Clerk of the Court

Louise) Pearson,

P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station

Austin1, Texas 78711

November 26, 2014

Dear Clerk:

COURT OFCRMMAL APPEALS

04 20tt

^bel Acosta, Clerk

Please bring this (Petitioner's Reply to State's Reply to Petition

For Writ of Habeas Corpus) C-371-010342-0826520-D; to the attention

of the Court for filing as amended to Scott's "original" application

for Writ of habeas corpus 11.07 from the 371 Judicial Court of

I

Tarrant County Tx. filed as aforementioned on November 17, 2014 by

Clerk of the said Tarrant County Court.,(Thomas A. Wilder).

Please NOTE that a "copy" of this action and request of the Court

pof Criminal Appeals of Texas has been sent to the 371 Judicial

Court Clerk for processing through District Attorney Joe Shannon Jr.

and the Court thereto.

Thank you for any and all consideration into this matter

Ramsey

1100 F.

One unit

M. 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583

cc:GLS.'
EX PARTE

GERY LEE SCOTT

CAUSE NO. C-371-010342-0826520-D

§ IN THE COURT

§ OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

§ OF TEXAS

j PETITIONER'S REPLY TO

JSTATE'S REPLY. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

!

COMES NOW, Gery Lee Scott, hereinafter,(Scott), in answer

to State's Reply to his Petition for Habeas Corpus relief and

shows that the 371ST Judicial Court through Criminal District

Attorney of Tarrant County, Texas mistakenly presents his Claims

| ' ' ' (OUT OF CONTEXT) in a calculated effort to misconstrue the facts i

at issue which are: (1.) the Statutes (V.T.C.A. §508.145-§508.

I

149 ARE unconstitutional on their faces and as they are applied

to Scott's (ILLEGAL RESTRAINT) where they allow arbitrary abro

gation of h is Work and Good-Time Credits, a "Liberty Interest"

i '

created by virtue of the language of the Statutes(§508.145-§508.

149) and defined in part in .§497.002(2) as afore demonstrated (See

Scott's "original' 11.07 and Memorandum in Support of Ground

i

One) Const. Amend. 5., 14.) (§508.145-§508.149). j

The Case in Brief/Procedural History:

The Applicant concedes to (all) History entry data (EXCEPT):

(1.) Scott had no knowledge that a Deadly Weapon Finding had

j

.been) applied to h is case CR-0826520-D and;

i ' ' v (2.) Scott avers that the last (2) two lines of the first page

j

of the State's Reply is "Absent" completion and does NOT

depict what, he has alleged that his sentence had been:,;

(a.)j "The applicant filed an application for writ of habeas

corpus on July 13, 2012, alleging that his sentence

had been-.. "

which does not follow completion on the next page or anywhere

else in the State's Brief/Procedural History therefore Scott

respectfully denies alligations (1.) and (2.).

(1.)
Discussion:

Scott has a right to release based on his argument that the

Statute(s) §508.145-§508.149 create his liberty interest within

his Good and Work-Time where it is clear that his (3g) catagory

i

by virtue of the language of the Statue "WITHOUT CONSIDERATION

OF . GOOD CONDUCT TIME" sets a value on.Scott's Good-Time and

solidifies that value by DENYING application of MANDATORY SUPERVISION

and DISCRETIONARY MANDATORY SUPERVISION (formulas) which take

1 I " Scott's Good-Time and Work-Time Credits out of the catagory

|

formula of "REVIEW" which frees up Scott's Good-Time and WorkTime tio "new" meaning, a Statute "created" Liberty Interest

protected by the U.S. Constitution 14 Due Process of Scott's

EARNED Good-Time and Work-Time applied toward his release to

parole,a catagory NOT unfamiliar to TDCJ since it's Mandatory

Supervision operates on trie "exact" same practice of "mandatory"

i

release on parole without Board of Pardons and Paroles inter

vention or discretion where enumerated factors mandate release

to minimum discharge dates.

Scot

149are

tions,

t avers that his "ONE" Claim is that the §508.145 - §508.

"unconstitutional" contrary to the U.S. and Texas Constitu-

(see Const.Amend.14,5.);(Tx.Const- 1.04[2][3]);(§508.

145-§508.149);(see also,Tx.Crim.App.1957."In determining if a denial

of due process has occurred, Court of Criminal Appeals will

arrive at a conclusion.by an independent examination of the

undisputed facts." Ex parte Roberts, 307 S.W,2d 94, 165 Tx.Crim.

353.," );(See Teaguw v. Quarterman 482 F.3d 769,777-80 (5th Cir.

2007|) ;(Holding that, deprivation of any amount of good time is

a liberty deprivation, rejecting argument that good time loss

can be de minimis),

(2.)
toward

obsurd

finally, (See Scott's C-371-010342-0826520-D 11.07 habeas corpus

filed November 17, 2014-Memorandum In Support Ground One page

1. - 10. ) .

A. Right to Mandatory Supervision Release:

Scott concedes no entitlement to Mandatory Supervision Release

Tex.Gov1t code §508.149(3g) catagory language of the statute

on Scott's Charge(injury to a child),

B. Right to Parole Release:

.i . ScOjtt avers that he has a right to parole release per .the

Statuted formula mandating One-Half of his sentence be served

I

Flat Time without consideration of Good-Time Credits, where

j

WITHOUT his Good-Time and Work-Time Credits applied legally

his release on parole the Statuted language creates

results denying Scott's liberty Interest Good-Time and

Work-Time abrogated to the Half-Time of h is sentence served.

In short the Statutes at issue have no authority in law where

they, |(§508.145-§508.149) arbitrarily abrogate Scott's liberty

I

interest Good-Time and Work-Time and on it's face is contrary

to the U.S. and Texas Constitutions denying and depriving Scott's

due process of law. ("If a Liberty Interest is "created" by

the Statute, due process requires nortice and meaningful opportunity

to be| heard" La Chance v. Erickson, 522, U.S. 262,266(1993)) i

and more clearly defining; C.A.5(Tex.)2001. "As to state prison

inmate's liberty interests arising from state law as opposed

to :Due Process clause itself, only those State-Created Sub

stantive interests that inevitably affedct duration of prisoner's

sentence may qualify for protection under Clause" U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend.14. and; Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423.;

TexJApp.-Houston[14th Dist.]1990. Prison regulation containing

"substantive predicates" or criteria wh i.ch serve to limit

discretion of prison officials, and wh ich also contains

(3.)
Yexplicitly mandatory language or specific directives mandating

a particular outcome when the regulation's criteria are present,

CREATES AN ENFORCEABLE LIBERTY INTEREST." U.S.C.A. Const.

Amend.14. Johnson v. Lynaugh, 800 S.W.2d 936, writ granted

and writ denied, and writ withdrawnScott thus avers strongly that where the Statutes §508.145-

§508.149 are unconstitutional and violate Scott's due process,

i

(Const.Amend.14.),. they throughout are void of authority to

enforce Tex.Gov'tCode §508.149(a)(1) and thus Scott's Statute

"created" liberty interest Good-Time and Work-Time are arbitrarily i

abrogated by virtue of the Statute thus violating Scott's ConstAmend. 14 depriving h im of his liberty vestedn in his Good-Time

where

processed along with his Work-Time toward h is release to parole.

(See Tex.App.-Austin 1997. "Mandatory language of Statute that

prisoner shall be released on parole unless certain enumerated

factors are found "creates" presumption, and, therefore,

constitutionally protected expectation of release. U.S.C.A.

Conbt.Amend.14; Vernon's Ann. Tex.Const. Art -1,§§17,19. ; Bohannan

v. ^Texas' Board of Criminal Justice, 942, S.w. 2d 113, rehearing

overruled, and writ denied.)

'i

'' Scott avers that by virtue of the Statutes at issue his release

to parole on Half h is sentence served can "only"11 be legal

the Statutes §508.145-§508.149 abrogate Scott's Good and

Work Time Credits as Statute created liberty interest Creditsr

and

prior

hus calculate toward :. his release to parole the same as

formula of Good-Time Flat-time calculated toward release

on prorjected release date(minimum Release Date). (See TDCJ Orieni

tation Handbook pg-., 56. (c. )(1.) (a.)( c.) "Of fenders under this law

who have their parole'denied will be reelased to Mandatory Super

vision on their Projected Release Dates(minimum expiration dates).

(4.)
and ("Tex.App,Beaumont 2006. "As an intermediate appellate court,

Court of Appeals cannot reject the most compelling inter

pretation of s tat utory language, for a fair interpretation,

even if Court of Appeals preferred as a matter of policy

the result yielded by the broader interpretation. Griggs

v. Triple S. Indus. Corp.,-197 S.W.3d 408.")

Conclusion:

The Applicant is being "Illegally Restrained" of h is liberty

where due to §508.145-§508.149 arbitrarily abrogating h is GoodTime and Work-Time Credits toward h is release to parole he

is denied due process of law (Const.Amend.14), since his credits

towards h is release only effect his time served in TDCJ, not

the actual length of sentence the courts imposed on him. (See

TDCJ-Offender Orientation HandBook pg. 56.C.(1.)(c)"These Offenders

"MUST" be released on parole, or on their maximum expiration

dates."'

pg. 60. (g.) "Sentences for offenses occurring on or after 9-

1-96 WILL NOT be considered for Mandatory Super

vision or Discretionary Mandatory Supervision,

if the offender has ever been convicted of: Injury

to a child..." /

pq 56 (C )(1.)(c)"-- -Any good time earned.by these offenders

COUNTS TOWARD PAROLE ELIGIBILITY ONLY..."

Scott avering no clearer": meaning effecuated by the Statute's

Language can be taken, from "COUNTS TOWARD PAROLE ELIGIBILITY"

except that Scott when certain enumerated factors exist by virtue

of the Statutes is is "parole eligible" as earned by his GoodTime and Work-Time calculated toward his parole.

Scott thus avers that where absent his parole eligibility

and release to parole does not occur his due process is violated

by virtue, of the Statutes first creating his liberty interest

in his Good-Time and Work-Time respectively and then contrary

to it's creation of his liberty interest the very same Statute

denies legal abrogation of h is Good and Work Time toward his

(5.)
his time served to Half h is Sentence to release on parole.

(See Const. Amend. 14. 5.) (Scott's Original Application for

habeas corpus 11.07 Memorandum in Support of Ground One).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Scott PRAYS that the Court

of Criminal Appeals amend this (Petitioner's Reply to; State's

Reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) to Scott's original

"Memorandum In Support of Ground One of Scott's 11.07 Writ and

recognize Scott's filings as not to be construed as that of

' a skilled attorney but a layman of the' law, and find in Scott's

favor that the Statutes at issue in his ONE Claim of them being

in violation of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions as presented

throughout Scott's demonstrations and facts supporting the

same DO violate Scott's due process of his Good and Work Time

credits and thus have no authority in law as applied to Scott's

to hold him under conditions of §508.145-§508.149 respectively.

Scott also request of the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals

of Texas, recognize TDCJ and law V.T.C.A. Gov't Code §497.002(2)

define on the one hand TDCJ's definition of inmate labor(work)

as reducing cost, as defined by the Statute and on the other

hand Scott's earned property joined with his Good-Time to apply

without considerstion to eligibility to release on parole under

the §508.145-§508.149 (3g) application thus contrary to it's

own language meaning denying Scott's liberty interest in his

Earned Work and Good-Time alike.(Const.Amend.14, 5.) Scott

by virtue of these violations should be afforded relief he is

requesting ,or in the alternative corrective action taken by

the court.

(6.)
Respefctfully Submitted,

PRO SE

UNSWORN DECLARATION

I, GERY LEE SCOTT, DO DECLARE, that the information within this

action is True and Correct to the best of his knowledge and

attest to the sqme under penalty of perjury this 26th Day of

November, 2014 as signed to below.

SCOTT"PRO SE

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE.

I., GERY LEE SCOTT, DO Certify that a copy of this action has

been sent post prepaid to the 371st Judicial District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas at the address of; JOE SHANNON, JR.,

District Attorney, 400:E. Belknap. St., Fort Worth, Texas 76196-

0201 placed in the U.S. Mail on Ramsey^One Unit November 26,

2014 and signed to the same below.

cc:GLS.

(7.)

,E"E SCOTT^PRO SE

Ramsey OneJ Unit

TDCJ-ID#1123905

1100 F.M. 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583