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:This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to the court pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07. The applicant contends that he is entitled to 112 days of jail-time credit from June 25, 1994, to Oct. 15, 1994, for time spent confined in the county jail from the date of his arrest to the date of his release on bond. Since applicant alleges he is within 180 days of his presumptive parole date, he fits within an exception enumerated in Texas Government Code 501.0081 (c). The applicant was sentenced on July 6, 1995, and given back-time credit from May 12, 1995, to date of judgment and sentence. Therefore, the time applicant requests is pre-sentence jail time credit. The applicant alleges that he has filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the convicting court, requesting that this pre-sentence jail time be credited to him, but the trial court had not ruled on the motion when he filed the writ application. As a result of the writ filed by the applicant, the trial court issued an order finding that there were no controverted previously unresolved issues of fact material to the legality of the petitioner’s confinement. The trial court did not find that the applicant had already received the credit by way of a nunc pro tunc order, and the record is silent on what action, if any, the trial court took on the motion. HOLDING:The application is dismissed. The trial court is required to grant the applicant pre-sentence jail time credit when sentence is pronounced. Article 42.03 2(a). In the event the court fails to award such credit at the time the sentence is imposed, the trial court has the authority to correct the judgment to reflect the appropriate time credit by nunc pro tunc order and should do so. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 23.2. This court has held that matters which may be raised and resolved by nunc pro tunc proceedings should not be considered by way of writ of habeas corpus. “The appropriate remedy in this situation is to require Applicant to present the issue to the trial court by way of a nunc pro tunc motion, as Applicant alleges he has done in this case. If the trial court fails to respond, Applicant is first required to seek relief in the Court of Appeals, by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.” OPINION:Per curiam.

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.