X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1992, applicant pled nolo contendere to indecency with a child and was sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment and a $750 fine. Since that conviction, the applicant has filed 21 applications for writ of habeas corpus, many of which have been dismissed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 4. In this application, he complains about the time credit consequences of his 1999 parole revocation. These claims are identical to those raised in his sixteenth application. HOLDING:Dismissed. Texas Government Code 498.0045(a) provides: “In this section,”final order’ means a certified copy of a final order of a state or federal court that dismisses as frivolous or malicious a lawsuit brought by an inmate while the inmate was in the custody of the department or confined in county jail awaiting transfer to the department following conviction of a felony or revocation of community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision. On receipt of a final order, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is to forfeit certain designated periods of time, which may not later be restored.” The court asks, “Does an Article 11.07 habeas corpus proceeding constitute a”lawsuit’ for the purpose of the statute?” While “lawsuit” is used in its broad meaning in the court’s cases, statutory references to the word almost uniformly involve the more narrow use as a description of civil actions. Excluding the statute under consideration in this case and related statutes, the only possible exceptions appear to be the statute describing the barratry offense in the Penal Code and a Water Code statute that may refer to criminal offenses committed under that code. It is apparent that the word “lawsuit” is ambiguous, the court concludes. The court turns to extratextual factors, reviewing the statute’s extensive legislative history. However useful this statute could be if applied to habeas proceedings, the court states, the court concludes that the Legislature did not contemplate its use in that context. The court holds that 498.0045 does not apply to Article 11.07 habeas corpus proceedings. OPINION:Keller, P.J., delivered the court’s opinion.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.