Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Criminal Law No. 74-642, 7/2/2003. Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpusfiled pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07. The applicant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to three years confinement. HOLDING: The Board of Pardons and Paroles is ordered to reconsider applicant for mandatory release and to provide him with timely notice of when such reconsideration will occur. The applicant contends that he was approved for release on discretionary mandatory supervision, but was not released on his scheduled date nor was he given prior notice that the board was reconsidering its decision to release him. The trial court has provided to this court findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to this writ application and has included two affidavits from the assistant director of the review and release-processing section of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s parole division. Those affidavits indicate that applicant was approved for mandatory-supervision release and sent notice on April 9, 2002, that he would be released on his projected release date, July 2, 2002. However, the applicant was not released on his scheduled release date because the Board subsequently withdrew its previous approval. The affidavits also state that the department records do not reflect that applicant was notified that the board was reconsidering his release. In Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (2000), the court held that an inmate is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the board before it makes a decision concerning his release. Meaningful opportunity to be heard means that the board must provide an inmate with prior notice that the inmate is to be considered for mandatory supervision release so that the inmate may then make use of his ability to tender to the board, or have tendered on his behalf, information in support of release Because the board, without notice to applicant, reversed its decision to release applicant to mandatory supervision, it denied him the required meaningful opportunity to be heard. OPINION: Johnson, J.; Meyers, Price, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., join. Keller, P.J., concurs. Womack, J., dissents.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.