ABOU'l' THE SPt;C!FICS OF 'l'HE ALLEGED :JFL?ENSE AND
GRCCliND T'wO: A.t'PLICAI.\4'£ 'S E.tGHTaf AND FOU.Rl'EEN'l'il AM&'IDMBN'l' RlGli'l'S :WAS VIOLATED OUi.Ui~G 'l'nE .SENTEi:~CING S'l'AGS OF '!'RIAL, DUE TO THE DISTRICT A'l"l'OONEY 1 S JUDGMENT MADE A'l' ·J:HE 0U'l·-SEI' TdAT riE WILL NEVEH BE E'Il' 'lU RE-EN'l'BR SOCIETY.
III. ... ___..... ,.
PROCEDURAL li.i.S'IOH.Y
Applicant was arrested at the age of (16) sixteen and charged as ajuven~le wi~b the offense in qu•stion. The scate filed a pet- l iti~n ~euking the waiver of jurisdi~tion·~f the 313th juv~nila
diut:: l.Ct court. see, EX- D [PETITION ] • A c·~:x:-tifledt.loo hwar.l.l&g waa nald wher~ the juveniJ.a court granted the State.!) petition and .ioaued a Oi:~ waiv- · · ing J~.:n:.isdiction •.9ae,EX-f) [ORDER WAIV"IOO JURISDICTION;SEE ALSO API?L.LCAI.'-l'.I''i ADDITIONAL A'l"rACH COP.Y AT EX-A]. Applicant to the l80th district court for c~im­ w~s tcan~ferr&d
ir.al proceedi"lgs t where na plea. not guilty and proce&d to jury . trial. Tna jury found hlm guilty and 6~n~ence him to life in the Texa.'3 Department of Cr icuincd. Justl.c:~ ~ystem. aee, EX- S [ JU])3MENT & SEN'l'Ei.'l~f~ J• .!\pplicant filed a noi;.it:.:= ~:.if ~ppe.:::.l through counael ,which was - affi~med hy cne l4ch Court of Appaal& iANO appeal to the ord~r
waiving JUrisdiccion was ~ak~n wh~re Applicant waa not inforilled ov C(?rti.t:J.cation counse.i,oc t.rial coun.:sel.~~a,EX··l· [AE'FIW-WI'l' BY AP!?LICAN'l'], or O'J t.he juvenile court of the right. t·J ap£)cal.aER t"IAIVI~...; JURISDIC''l'ION;ALSO SUPPLEMENTAL EX-A]. Applicant chen filed his original 11.07 writ of habeas corpus ,Hhich was denied without writt.an ordar~ Applicant th•an filed 1M his second 11.07 writ of habeas corpua,which is still pending i~ tne court of Criminal Appeals,and h• was granted permission to supplement said habeas corpus within 30 days.aee,EX-B[COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ORDER) • ·
. '~. . :~. .. . IV ..;.·, .. _, 11.07 SECTION 4 STA~£MENT:
Applican~ ~ow supp~ement nis section 4 ataeement pursuant to arLtcle ll.07§4(a){l)(b) and (a)(2}. Because the current claima ha£ not b?gn and could not have been reasonaoly formulated on the data of ~ha filing of his original .haDaa~ ~orpua,because the leg~
basis of tho claim[ standard for r.aview] waa not recognied by and co- uld not hav~ b~en reaso~nbly formulaced from a final decision ·Of a cour~ of App~ll3~2t J~riodicticn of chis State on or before the til.i.ng oi hi. .:; or.:i.gine:11 ~~bea~ corpus.sea,MOON v. S'l'ATE, . ao s.w. 3d 366(~rEXn APP~-HOUSTON[lst dist.J2013: Alflf 1 1l_S.W. 3d_,2014 TEX. CRIM. APP. LEXIS 1918,2014 WL 6997366.]. Also,tiy che preponderance of tho evidence,but tor the violation of Applicant's du~ process righLa of &he Uniced Stat~s Conacituc- icn no r.~-:ional jc1ro.!'" cr.-:Ji.ci n.::v.a £oun.S him guilty where· the crim- inal dis~r~ct court ~ackad jurisdiotion~aad ~he princ~J.es set out in GRAHAM v. PLOR!DA,560 U3-,l30 S.Ct.-,176 l.&d 2d 825,2010 US LSXIS 3~81 and ROPER v. SIMMONS,543 U.S. 551,125 S.Ct.ll83,161 L. Ed .. 2d l. Under che plain la~guage of the acatu~e,once an Applicanc tiles :~~~~~~~1~1iL'ieftfl challenging !:h~ conviction,all subsequ.,n~ ciippli- ca~iona regarding ~ha sarn9 conviction must mae~ 'o~a' of the ~wo conditions sec torth