The opinion
¢k
"ii{ _ _ 31 _”Q@w /0)
_ WILF§§D* c. aaron
g _f_~__, __ _Toc No. 610297 _ COHECE|VED_§_
-, _ McConnél vnit ' WCHMM
_Q _£ ’Beevile, Texas 78102 “ V»__m:MAR]:FZBM
, ,. Mal_r_ch ¢_7_5' 20_15_ __ _ _ ____ Ah@_ACMQ_C_@_k ¢
Ms. Chr1st1ne Womble
As_a1stant D1str1ct Attorney
Frank Crow!ey Coutts Bu11d1ng _ _ _ §
133 H. Roverfr`6nt Blvd., LB- 19 ' " 1;'
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 ' - s
4
Re: W;it No. W90-23810-V(A{
bear Ms. Womblee w
_ ylease.f1pd ehclosed App!icant Reply to State's
Reqpohse to Applicat1cn for the Wr1t of Habeas Corpus.§
Bg copy of this 1etter, I am forward a copy of the £§
same to the Coutt ofCr1m1na1 Appe1a1s_at the addressed below.
!hank you_for your time and consideration 1a th1§5matter.
. w _; z ll ~ ' ,,
§ § b S1ncerely, 5
2 .'.j'. \\ , -
WrLFr$;:fo' c. GA ron
fi-~z-es __ -~ _
cci Mi. Abel A_coste, Clerk §
Court of Ct1m1na1 Appeals _ s
P. O. qu 1.2308, Capito1 Stat1on
'Agstin;zf%xas?Vs?I!
enclo;utes `:@
ii ¥'- ) _
¢~., .-_. ; . w
'=' ~ ' \.\ ‘ "¢~ -.rr.»‘
-\~ ¢ ', . - _.'\
\“$
~§; <w ~
" v .
____ k _~
,"? '
__z _ _
l
¢=.,,_.
WRIT loc l’@¥$l¢la*?fl)
sxpanzp * t v s rn res 292cn avorcra§
Wrcrnto cLARsncs aaron s orsrnzcr cover
¢F§_ ' s oALLAs coerY, rsxns
jcnron“s nancy ro srars*a axsponss
ro aprzrcarxon ron carr or canons canons
jo ing noNoRAB§n,Juvcz or sara covers
d cOHES NO#, 'IL!BBD cLARll¢l GAfGR, inc loe 610297A
Apylicant in é$o.above number and cause ana file this his
Reply§to Statcfs'kesponse to Application for Writ of Hapeas
Cotous, and fog good cau$e, Applicant states the following¢
§ ; r.
lt
‘\r
HISTGRY OF THB CASB
- §pplicantwwas charged with murder¢ The jury found hin
guilt;, sentenced him to confinement for life in the rakas
Deoa;tmsnt o{;btiminal Justice - Institutional Division,
and a§aeased a $10,000 fino. Applicant's conviction van
affirmed on aégaql.
& 4 1'1.
' ` 'ISSUE RAISED IN APPLIGATION
go the in§tant writ, the applicant contend the rakas
Board%of Pardon and Patole statutory criteria Board.it~making
its aecision' 5
L
wm
¢~,z»' v,, j
' irr.
' nprz,rcnn!"s REPLY
lipplicant contend thatt the board of Pardon and Parole
criteria for,t?e release of an offender onto §arole are
vague§§and'unconstitutional.'::l
, fha statute calls on the Board members to evaluate
the offenders*ypotential for rehabilitation and_ebether”
his rileaee could emdager the *rnblic!¢ see, V¢r.c.A. éov't
coa`e§'.'s soa. 14,9.20‘§`)._.
jhe state in their response_has misconstrued Applicantfs
Writq see, stete*a Respenae at page 31 The decision makers
§ `
has rcpeatedlg set applicant off for parole for: ”..;The
record`indicated that_the inmate committed on one or moret|
violent crimin§l acts indicating a conscious disregard for j
the livds, safety¢ or property of others) or the inteng
offense or,pat§ern of criminal activity,has elements of
brutality, violence{ or conscious selection of victim's
vulnerability such that the inmate pose a continuing threat
l
to Public saf%ty; or the record indicated use of a ueapon
eeeee‘""__:
jl'Applican§W§ conviction was committed over fid)igeare,..
ages &he.decision makering should have consider his_pr§sent
record and filps which would have revealed his rehabilitation 3
;\
presentation.?see, exhibits attached to the original writs
z
3
Applicant know, there are no mandatory rules or guide- 3
lines¢hat must be followed in every case because each offender
is unique. The Board and Parole commissioners have the stat-
"-‘L'L»
utory duty to make release decision which are only in the
best interest of scciety. Parole panels use parole guidee
lines as a tool to aid in the discretionary Parole decision sp
*'_` s"
process. but here, in 'rexaa', ”Administrative Code, Rule
8 l45: 3, Policy statements relating to parole release decision_;
by the Board of Pardon and Parole clearly states an offender
will be 'consider' for Parole when eligible and when the
offender "met“vthe following criteria with regard to "behavior"
during incarceration;
v d y 4
/a£‘ other than on initial Parole eligibility,- v
the Rpplicant must not have had a major disciplinary
v misconduct report in the sir-month period prior
'§`_ to the date he is reviewed for parole) which
haig has resulted in loss of good conduct time »: g_"
`or reduction to a classification status below § ’
r`z’
' that‘aseigned during that person' s initial intry
"”into TD€J, andy ,
w b, at the time he is reviewed for parole the person ‘Mé '
\@ g v ,must be classified in the same or higher time W
earning classification assigned during that
,person ,'s initial entry into TDC'J. .
Applicant has not had a major disciplinary case for
years not along 'six-sonths" The parole release decision,v
however, is more subtle and depends on an amalgam of elemeat,
some of which are purely subjective appraisls by the Board
members based upon their experience with the difficult and
sensitive task of evaluating the advisability of paroles
:)'
.\.
m .
`..3..
release. Unkile revocation decision, there is no set of
facts which, if shown, mandate a decision favorable to the
individual the parole determination, like a prisoner - tran-
for decision, may be made "for a variety of reasolN and
often involve[s] no more than informed prediction as to
.what would best serve Icorrectional purposes] or the safety
and welfare ex the inmate. see, teaches tano, 427 owes
at 225, 96 8. Ct. at 2550. The decision turns on a "dis4
cretionary assessment of a multiplicity of imponderables,
entailing prim;rily 'what a man ”is' and ”what he may become"
,_rather than simply °what he has done.f Kadish, the advocate'
nand the expert - counsel in the reno .~ correctional Process,
45 Hinn. L. Rev. 803, 813 (l96l)s.see, original Wr it.
asl"Texas statutory Lanugage° itself creates a protectible
eupectation of Parole. The soard members reply on the section
ghich§ provides in part.:'Whenever the Board of Parole`considerw
the release ofma committed offender who is eligible for release
on parole, it shall order his release unisss it is of the v
opinion that his release should be deferred because:'
1'__"(a) there is a substantial risk that he will not conformF
_to the condition of parole;
”fb) His release would depreciate the seriousness#of
his crime or promote i*'*:""disrespect for law)
”(c) his release would have a substantially adverse
effect ondinstitutional disciplinary; or -
"dd) his contiuned correctional treatment, medical
are or vocational or other training in the facility
. gill substantially enhance his capacity to lead a
law-abiding life when release at a later date.
Texas Administrative Code § 145.12._ h
€" ' a _ . `_-4-
`!
' gha Statejenphasize that the etructdre of the provision
toyetner with §he use of the word "shall" binds the Bo§rd
!§?.?
-'of Parole to release an inmate unless any one of the four w‘
rr??,
specifically designated'reasons are found.“rn`their‘re%iew
or view, the §§atute create a presumption that parole release-F
will §e'grantea, and that this in turn create a legitinatel
ex§ectation oéfrelease absent the reqnisite'finainy tn;t
-one'of the jastifications for deferral exists. v
§pplicantfe sole ground for relief should be granéed.
`IV;
§` _ ,.j couchszow
The Applicant res§ectfally request that thistcourtl
r§ecommenaed that Applicant“s applictien be granted.n
Respectfuly sobmittedf
Ȥ",_ : ' WILSRED cl aaron _ .
TDC No. 610297
5 §v - Mcconnell unit h
§ » ' ’ ` 3001 S. Emily Ur.
Beeville, Texas 78102
_I CERT!FICATE or SBRVICE
" I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing
1-
Reply' was served on Aseistant District Attorney, by deposing
same gin the united states mail,_ postage prepaid, on QZZMé
4 high .§F_ , 2015. § x
1, - erFoREn c. aaron
n ""
ii ` n 5-